Jan 5, 2016

Social Nationalism: An Economic Future for Our People

via TradYouth

The Traditionalist Worker Party aims to end a decade- long Right-Wing fascination with capitalism by supporting nationalist economics, a Third Position that is between both capitalism and communism. Most people are supportive when they are told about Third Position, but all most Americans know to choose from are neoconservatism and neoliberalism.

Third Position is perhaps best expressed as an ideology of Socialism for the Nation, anathema as it is to the #cuckservatives and their legions of bow-tied Libertarian lackeys. But it is the choice for nationalists who want to see their nation and their people happy, healthy, and in control of their destiny.

There are few words as misunderstood by the American public as the word “Socialism.” To many conservatives and those on the supposed Right, the term conjures up thoughts about the Soviet Union, Communism and John Birch Society rhetoric of the Cold War. Everything in America that Republicans don’t like is deemed Socialist, at least by the pundits on Fox News.

What the conservatives do not understand is that Socialism is a natural element in any organic and folkish society. There are two forms of Socialism, International Socialism and Socialist Nationalism, while they share the same description, they are two radically different ideologies. International Socialism always ends up serving a small oligarchy of elites both on the national and then the international level.

The work and resources of the nation are stolen by usurious bankers and companies who do not care for the well being on the nation, only increasing their profit margins. Socialist Nationalism, which can be both the ideology of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party or another version of Socialism focused around the people and the nation, is based entirely on putting the nation ahead of any and all international interests.

"Property is the direct projection of man upon his goods; it is an elementary human attribute. Capitalism has been replacing this property of man by the property of capital, by the technical instrument of economic domination." -JOSE ANTONIO PRIMO DE RIVERA
“Property is the direct projection of man upon his goods; it is an elementary
human attribute. Capitalism has been replacing this property of man by the property of capital, by the technical instrument of economic domination.” -Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera

A nationalist view of Socialism has been found in everything from the Kingdoms of Medieval Europe to the Fascist movements of the 20th century. Only the radical individualists led by Jewish thinkers like Ayn Rand in the modern era have pushed an idea that members of a folk do not have a duty and a tie to help support their countrymen. Socialism has become an artificial and scary -ism in American discourse, but nothing in political science is more organic and friendly than investment in the health and wealth of one’s own people.

According to Sir Oswald Mosley, “If you love our country you are nationalist, and if you love our people you are a socialist.” It is not enough to fight for your ethnic Identity, you must also have an economic view that fights for true Social Justice and liberates the folk from the bonds of slavery to capitalism and communism, the two ideologies of the globalist elites.

The dictionary definition of Socialism for the Nation is “a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.” What this means is that the nation actually controls the wealth, resources and production that the nation makes. These resources, both human capital and God given natural resources, and manufactured products are there for the service of the people, not international corporations or globalist bankers.

National Socialism does not imply that we disregard the investments of industrialists and entrepreneurs. National Socialism does not imply that we refuse to reward excellence or enforce equality of wealth or esteem. And it’s certainly not limited to a singular vilified place in time. National Socialism merely entails that the industrialists, the entrepreneurs, and the wealthy must not disregard the nation, its infrastructure, and the people upon whom their success depends.

The definition of International Socialism is “a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.” The International Socialist worldview is that the nation, borders, ethnic Identity, and culture will be broken down to eventually be part of a globalist government.

While the Communists speak of a “Workers Paradise,” what they invariably deliver is turning the workers into slaves for the oligarchs. The same is just as true of capitalists. They desire to turn the workers into wage slaves of corporations and to transform the world’s patchwork of distinct and unique peoples into a globalist bazaar. Faith, family, folk, blood, honor, borders, and brotherhood are nothing but inefficiencies in the market to be demolished by the oligarchs and the ideology monsters who’ve imbibed their lies. Both Systems of Internationalism lead to the death of ethnic communities, cultures, religion, and borders and both must be defeated.

Looking forward for the Traditionalist Worker Party, it is wise that we look to identify what the very purpose and nature of the Party is. The Traditionalist Worker Party in everything we fight for has a focus on the wellbeing of working families and upon upholding positive morals, values, ethics for the nation as a whole.

Our Party must fight economic exploitation on both fronts, stopping a hostile takeover of the workers and stopping exploitation from the bosses against the working class. The Party will work to battle class warfare and instead promote class cooperation between all members of our national family.

The capitalists and communists each promote an ideology of egalitarianism and internationalism which dehumanizes the individual, stifles innovation and makes regular people second class citizens. In both exploitative economic systems there is a forced egalitarianism of the people, with either Soviet-style oligarchs ruling over a vast nation of slaves or elite businessmen and bankers ruling over “consumers.”

Our political beliefs put the family and the nation ahead of all personal greed, creating a government for the people and by the people. Our nation must be ensured to be able to be physically and spiritually healthy and able to use self determination to chart our own course, this can only be realized by a Party that promotes unity of class.

Socialism for the nation believes that every individual has a duty for work for the betterment of themselves and their nation. Genesis 3:19 tells us “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” Each person eats due to their effort in working at their job that fits their God given skill set.

Socialism is not an excuse for laziness or malingering, the only ones expected to not work are the elderly, the handicapped, pregnant women, mothers and the very young. Every man who is of age and capable of work is expected to serve in civil service, the military or at a job that uses honest labor to provide for the needs of his family, his community and the nation. Single women should also be encouraged before marriage to learn skills in “pink collar” jobs such as education, medicine and other jobs that allow women to use their natural caring and nurturing instincts to help within our society.

"Together in Britain we have lit a flame that the ages shall not extinguish. Guard that sacred flame, my brother Blackshirts, until it illuminates Britain and lights again the paths of mankind." -Sir Oswald Mosley
“Together in Britain we have lit a flame that the ages shall not extinguish. Guard that sacred flame, my brother Blackshirts, until it illuminates Britain and lights again the paths of mankind.” -Sir Oswald Mosley

The nation provides for the elderly because they were the generation that sacrificed and battled to get us to our current situation and thus should be honored and cared for. Pregnant women and mothers are working by providing for their families, supporting the continuation of our folk through birthing, raising and educating the next generation and the work in the home while unpaid, is nonetheless some of the hardest work a person could do.

We must love and treasure our mothers of our nation because of their heroism and self sacrifice, their work is equal to the role of a man on the battlefield, securing the existence of our nation.

Compassion for the handicapped is a mark of a nationalist because no matter the individuals ability to contribute to the nation, they are a beloved member of our extended family. Those who are handicapped but high functioning should be encouraged to use their skills to work in ways that help provide them with a sense of accomplishment and purpose.

The State must care for all of its citizens, from the unborn all the way up to our senior citizens. This form of love for our people is shown through using Socialism to provide healthcare, education, rewards and incentives for hard work, advanced infrastructure and self defense for the entirety of the nation. Having more money or political influence should not give an individual the ability to trample upon his countrymen, while we maintain hierarchy in our society, each individual has a unique and equal value in the eyes of both God and the Party.

Ernst Rudolf Huber said of Socialism for the Nation “The member of the people, organically connected with the whole community, has replaced the isolated individual; he is included in the totality of the political people and is drawn into the collective action.” We desire to replace the radical individualism of today and replace it with healthy families and communities that work together, share with one another and have a dedicated interest in one another. Individuals are lost in the world, depressed and without purpose, men and women with purpose are parts of things greater than themselves and that is the desire of a nationalist form of Socialism.

The Traditionalist Worker Party has recognized that mere political movements do not free the peoples from the ties of international capital, what it takes to free our people is the organized national will of the people which it and it alone can stop the cheating of our nation by the globalist agents of parasitical multinational corporations and their bankster buddies.

A Socialist form of Nationalism is not unheard of in the United States. Governor Huey Long of Louisiana was a hero to his people because of his dedication to the cause of economic Social Justice and ensuring that the working poor were provided for. The Standard Oil Company and other huge conglomerates had taken the oil and natural resources of Louisiana for decades but left the State destitute and poor. Governor Long decided that if these corporations were going to do business in his State, they would benefit the citizens of Louisiana.

With taxes and programs forcing the corporations to do their fair share, Huey Long reduced illiteracy, build roads and other infrastructure projects, built universities and schoolhouses, provided welfare for the elderly and crippled and put his people first, above any shareholders or corporate board, he was a leader for his people and his State, and that is a history worth remembering.

Father Charles Coughlin, known as the “Radio Priest”, proposed a platform on how both Nationalism and Socialism can work together in America. Father Coughlin said “I have dedicated my life to fight against the heinous rottenness of modern capitalism because it robs the laborer of this world’s goods. But blow for blow I shall strike against Communism, because it robs us of the next world’s happiness.

charles-coughlinIn place of either of these Systems, Father Coughlin proposed that,
“Every citizen willing to work and capable of working shall receive a just, living, annual wage which will enable him both to maintain and educate his family according to the standards of American decency… nationalizing those public resources which by their very nature are too important to be held in the control of private individuals… I believe in upholding the right to private property but in controlling it for the public good…abolition of the privately owned Federal Reserve Banking system and in the establishment of a Government owned Central Bank…I believe in preferring the sanctity of human rights to the sanctity of property rights; for the chief concern of government shall be for the poor because, as it is witnessed, the rich have ample means of their own to care for themselves.”
In many ways the platform for the Union of Social Justice as established by Father Coughlin sound very much like the positions held by our Party. Father Coughlin also proposed something that perhaps would keep the rich from being so eager to send the sons of the poor off to fight wars on their behalf. To this Father Coughlin said “in the event of a war for the defense of our nation and its liberties, there shall be a conscription of wealth as well as a conscription of men.”

Overall the plan of Father Coughlin was both Nationalism and Socialism, putting the people and the nation first. During a speech Father Coughlin told his supporters “America has been led to a crossroads. One leads to Communism, the other to Fascism. I take the road to Fascism.” With that spirit, I choose to follow the path of the honorable and holy Father Charles Coughlin.

While FDR had Father Coughlin silenced by banning him from being able to send literature through the mail and by shutting down his radio program, the most popular in America, the vision of an American political movement to call for Socialism and Nationalism is once again rising. The enemy cannot defeat us in our struggle for peace, liberation and a healthy and organic nation that promotes the values of Faith, family and folk.

Only through the Traditionalist Worker Party can this message be brought to life so unite my brothers and sisters, the time for struggle and Revolution is now. The only thing that we have to lose is our chains!

The Assault on Gender and the Family: Jewish Sexology and the Legacy of the Frankfurt School, Part 2

via The Occidental Observer

Part 1

Albert Moll
Albert Moll (1862–1939), who would go on to be “a great influence on Freud,”[1] came from a Polish Jewish merchant family and “belonged to the Jewish religious community.”[2] Typical of his ethno-religious group, Moll frequently utilized his position within the field of medical psychology to form an oppositional bloc against prevailing opinions in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century non-Jewish society. Indeed, large numbers of Jews tactically ambushed several medical disciplines during this period for precisely this reason. Historian Elena Macini writes that “Jews flooded medicine at this time not only for social standing, but also in an era that witnessed the efflorescence of race science, for the opportunity of self-representation. … The presence of Jews in the medical sector in general, and in race science in particular, allowed them to assert Jewish equality and very often moral superiority.”[3] With Berlin as the center of German medicine, and Jews comprising one third of doctors in the city,[4] the domination and re-orientation of entire disciplines was not only feasible but disturbingly easy.

A key aspect of advocating for Jewish equality and moral superiority was the Jewish advocacy of social, racial and religious pluralism. This position often came into conflict with non-Jewish efforts to promote Nationalism, particularly ethnically-based Nationalism, and corresponding efforts to confront social and cultural decay. A universal theme in Albert Moll’s works were arguments against German attempts to reckon with late Imperial and Weimar-era social and biological degeneration via eugenic programs. For example, in his Handbuch der Sexualwissenschaften (1911) Moll expressed the hope that mooted plans for sterilization programs would “not be implemented and that our race-improvers do not get too much influence on our legislation.” When German science in the late 1920s became concerned with degeneration and decline, gravitating even further towards eugenics, Moll preceded Boas in rejecting the findings of behavior genetics, arguing that “the fact we find so many valuable people, despite the hereditary burden, is caused by regeneration in countless cases. …  We can hardly ever say something about the condition of offspring with any certainty at all.” Moll was therefore the quintessential Jewish physician: political and ethnic interests were never far from his dubious practice of medicine.

Also typical of Jewish intellectuals, Moll exhibited highly aggressive and assertive personality traits and had a flair for self-promotion. Although he began his career with a focus on hypnotism, Moll wasn’t long in utilizing these traits to gain professional closeness to sexology’s experts, particularly von Krafft-Ebing. He then masterfully orchestrated his own eclipse of von Krafft-Ebing to such an extent that Moll himself came to be considered, and largely remains considered, the pioneer of the field. However, Moll’s activity in sexology went far beyond stealing the limelight. From the beginning of his drift into sexology he adopted the same oppositional role that he occupied in relation to other German attempts to reckon with social decay. In particular, Moll worked tirelessly to persuade leading non-Jewish scholars like von Krafft-Ebing to reject the idea that sexual abnormality was the result of biological and psychological disorder. In his Freud: Biologist of the Mind, Frank J. Sulloway writes that “Krafft-Ebing’s decision around the turn of the century to separate the doctrine of degeneration from the theory of homosexuality was in response to the thinking of his younger and more critical colleague Moll.”[5] However, there is significant reason to doubt the validity of Krafft-Ebing’s personal change of perspective given that the most pertinent, later, editions of Psychopathia Sexualis that showcased this change were in fact edited by none other than Moll himself. Volkmar Sigusch even writes that Moll “completely overhauled the work.”

Moll’s work centered on the argument that there were alternative, valid, “identities,” and as such he argued that homosexuality was a “valid sexual identity.”[6] Whereas earlier non-Jewish psychiatrists observed “unsavory and often contemptible personal characteristics” among sexual inverts (including their tendency to be liars, their moodiness, love of gossip, and vanity and envy), Moll argued instead that “homosexual men were not corrupt, but merely womanish,”[7] comprising a kind of “third sex” — a theory that would later be advanced much further by co-ethnic Magnus Hirschfeld. In Sex, Freedom and Power in Imperial Germany, 18801914, E.R. Dickson remarks that Moll’s theories were popularized and given substantial sympathetic coverage in Germany by the predominantly Jewish Social Democratic press during the trial of Oscar Wilde in England in 1895 (re the contemporary scene, see Brenton Sanderson’s “Jewish media influence as decisive in creating a positive public culture of homosexuality“). Dickson writes that “public policy towards homosexuality was also one more issue Social Democrats could use to point to the hypocrisy of bourgeois sexual mores, and to elaborate on their own naturalist alternative. Social Democrat Eduard Bernstein, for example, did precisely that in his reporting for German audiences on the Wilde case in London (where he was living as a journalist).”[8]

Even more radical than Moll was Magnus Hirschfeld (1868–1935). Like Moll, Hirschfeld came from a family of Jewish merchants and, also like Moll, he advanced theories of social and sexual behavior amounting to “the existence of fundamental irreducible sameness in human beings.”[9] Elena Macini writes that Hirschfeld’s Jewishness was “a socially and politically determinant aspect of his life.”[10] A common feature of his work was the hatred he had for Christianity. Indeed, his critique of that religion resembled in many respects that concocted by Freud. To Hirschfeld, Christianity was “essentially sadomasochistic, delighting in the pain of ascetic self-denial.”[11] Western Civilization had thus been “in the grip of anti-hedonist exaggerations for two thousand years,” thereby committing “psychic self-mutilation.”[12] It was therefore Western society, rather than homosexuals and other outsiders, that was sick and degenerate, and Hirschfeld’s prescribed cure was sexual hedonism and the acceptance of a wide array of “identities” and “sexualities.” Although coming from a close-knit, observant, Jewish community, and possessed of an abiding hatred for Christianity, Hirschfeld superficially advocated a “pan-humanistic” outlook and was fond of declaring himself “a world citizen.”[13] (I might agree with Hirschfeld to a certain extent since he appears to me a perfect example of what Henry Ford called an “international Jew.”)

Magnus Hirschfeld: International “World Citizen”
Magnus Hirschfeld: “World Citizen”
Although there were few ideological differences between Moll and Hirschfeld, their egos clashed and there was a subtle disparity in approach. Whereas Moll was content to publicize his ideas from books and newspapers, the homosexual Hirschfeld was intent on a more direct form of activism in the fight to break down Western social and sexual mores. Like the Moll-popularizer Eduard Bernstein, Hirschfeld was a “socialist and an active member of the Social Democratic Party.”[14] Hirschfeld, described by Mancini as “cosmopolitan to the core,” essentially created the first homosexual “communities,” beginning in Berlin where the Hebrew “transvestite” (a term he coined) was known as “Aunt Magnesia” by the city’s sexual inverts. Hirschfeld organized homosexuals, encouraging them to openly flaunt their predilections and get involved in the growing campaign for “emancipation” that was developing under the auspices of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee which he had formed in 1897. Hirschfeld pioneered modern Social Justice Warrior tactics by urging celebrities and high-profile politicians to add their names in support of the campaign for “sexual equality.”

Hirschfeld and his protégés produced a vast number of books, manuscripts, papers, and pamphlets concerning sexuality, transvestitism, “transgenderism” (another Hirschfeld term) and fetishes. Through his work with the Scientific Humanitarian Committee, Hirschfeld published the 23-volume Yearbook for the Sexual Intermediates, the first periodical devoted to “homosexual studies.” Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science (Institut füer Sexualwissenschaft) was the world’s first gender identity clinic and his staff performed the first known transsexual surgeries. Through the Institute for Sexual Science which he founded in 1919, Hirschfeld also documented thousands of cases of sexual inversion and further bolstered his theory of the “Third Sex.”

Despite the labels attached to his committees and journals, Hirschfeld’s work rested largely on political argument rather than legitimate scientific investigation. Scholar Edward Dickson argues that Hirschfeld’s field was “characterized by unresolved and often speculative arguments.”[15] Whereas many of the early non-Jewish sexologists had a background in zoology and the sexual behavior of animals, particularly primates, Hirschfeld rejected such strictly biological or evolutionary interpretations of human sexual behavior. Following from this, the methodology he employed was extremely close to that employed by Freud — this is the “science” of patient interviews and circular reasoning rather than statistics and empirical observation.

Despite the bankruptcy of his science, the dramatic success of the Committee at mobilizing large sectors of German and European society on behalf of homosexuals was due to Hirschfeld’s personality. Like Moll, he was an aggressive and relentless agitator. Respecting few social codes, he was the darling of the Social Democrats and the reviled enemy of Weimar conservatives (Hitler referred to Hirschfeld as “the most dangerous Jew in Germany”). By the end of the 1920s Hirschfeld’s activism meant that Weimar Germany saw homosexuality less as a medical disorder and sign of degeneration than as a major cause célèbre. Hirschfeld’s perverse bonanza came to an end in 1933 when on May 6th Nationalist German student organizations and columns of the Hitler Youth attacked the Institute for Sexual Science. The Institute library was liquidated and its contents used in a book burning on May 10. The youths also printed and disseminated posters bearing Hirschfeld’s face complete with the caption: “Protector and Promoter of pathological sexual aberrations, also in his physical appearance probably the most disgusting of all Jewish monsters.” Hirschfeld himself had been on an international speaking tour since 1931. He lived in exile in France until he died of a heart attack in 1935.

Jewish Sexology Reduced to Ashes
Jewish Sexology Reduced to Ashes
In terms of theory, Hirschfeld had “subverted the notion that romantic love should be orientated toward reproduction,” arguing instead for the acceptance of homosexual lifestyles and hedonistic, non-reproductive, sexual relations in general.[16] A key element of Hirschfeld’s theory was the deployment of “love as a primary weapon in his ethical and philosophical campaign for the liberation of same-sex relationships.”[17] However, love as a concept was itself altered by Hirschfeld, who imbued it with transcendental and cosmic qualities in an effort to distance it as much as possible from biological, reproductive drives. Mancini writes that “the idea that love had the potential to not only lift the individual but to enrich the broader mission of humanity was articulated in Hirschfeld’s condemnation of theories of racial hygiene and his appeal to Panhumanism to extinguish the hatred among nations and races.”[18]

Such romantic theorizing, of course, had little to do with the actual content of sexological studies of the sexually inverted, where love featured significantly less than pederasty, promiscuity and disease. But it was the idea and “feeling” that mattered most in creating a homosexual movement and public support behind it. As strategy it corresponded perfectly with efforts to achieve “Jewish emancipation.” In this respect Richard Wagner put it most astutely and succinctly when he wrote that “when we strove for emancipation of the Jews we were really more the champions of an abstract principle than of a concrete case: … Our zeal for equal civil rights for Jews was much more the consequence of a general idea than of any real sympathy; for, with all our speaking and writing for Jewish emancipation, we always felt instinctively repelled by any actual, operative contact with them.” One could easily substitute “homosexuals” for “Jews” and achieve significant insight into the basic psychological processes at work, with Hirschfeld’s “general idea” being a florid abstraction of love around which the fashionable and easily duped may gravitate. It can’t be emphasized enough that Jews have been very adept at framing their arguments in emotional or moral terms that appear to have a unique pull on the consciences of Europeans, and such strategies are very difficult to unseat. One need only acknowledge that Hirschfeld’s work in this regard retains great potency in the present, with the recent “marriage equality” debate neatly side-stepping biological and social imperatives in favor of Hirschfeld-like maudlin non sequiturs about “love.”

Hirschfeld’s Ghost: Hedonism and Perversion Triumphant under the Banner of “Love”
Hirschfeld’s Ghost: Hedonism and Perversion
Triumphant under the Banner of “Love”
Hirschfeld’s use of the weaponized concept of love was itself a legacy of Hirschfeld’s “scientific mentor” and co-ethnic Iwan Bloch (1872–1922). Like Moll and Hirschfeld, Bloch had no background in zoology, evolutionary studies or animal behavior. Trained as a dermatologist, Bloch was also attracted to the cause of “sexual minorities” and became an ardent campaigner on their behalf. He joined with Moll and Hirschfeld in attacking the non-Jewish consensus that sexual inversion was pathological and coined the term sexualwissenschaft or sexology to give academic and medical respectability to what was essentially a Jewish intellectual reaction against non-Jewish efforts to categorize harmful social and sexual pathologies. He was also a keen promoter of perversion and pornography. He was the “discoverer” of the Marquis de Sade’s manuscript of The 120 Days of Sodom, which had been believed to be lost, and published it under the pseudonym Eugène Dühren in 1904. In 1899 he had published Marquis de Sade: His Life and Works under the same pseudonym. In 1906 he wrote The Sexual Life of Our Time in its Relations to Modern Civilization, for which he gained the praise of Sigmund Freud for attacking “bourgeois” (non-Jewish) sexual mores, attacking the perception of sexual inverts as pathological, and calling for Europeans to adopt a more pluralistic and hedonistic sexual life.

Iwan Bloch
Iwan Bloch
By the time Moll, Hirschfeld and Bloch had essentially co-opted and redirected the study of human sexual behavior, Jews were flooding the new “discipline” in increasing numbers. Albert Eulenberg (1840–1917), with a background in neurology and electrotherapy, began styling himself a sexologist. With Bloch and Max Marcuse (1877–1963) he co-edited the Zeitschrift fur Sexualwissenschaft  (Journal for Sexology) and with Hirschfeld he co-founded the Berlin Society for Sexual Science and Eugenics.[19] The eugenics aspect of the society’s name was of course a clever piece of deception, intended to ingratiate it with non-Jewish eugenic societies for the purposes of eventual subversion with Jewish oppositional ideas. Nor was the tactic new. Eulenberg, Hirschfeld and Moll all claimed to be eugenicists but, like the Jewish-dominated German League for Improvement of the People and the Study of Heredity, astute Nationalists perceived the attempt at co-option from within, and all were attacked by National Socialist publisher Julius F. Lehmann as “part of a targeted subversion on the part of Berlin Jews.”[20]

But time for the sexologists was beginning to run out. Following the destruction of Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science in 1933, the list of homosexual activists held by Hirschfeld’s organization fell into the hands of the police where it assisted the prosecution of thousands of sexual inverts under the Penal Codes, and the subsequent internment of these individuals in concentration camps. The journals and organizations of the Jewish sexologists were gradually shut down until, in 1938, the Jewish grip on several disciplines were categorically broken when the Nuremberg laws stripped thousands of Jewish physicians of their licenses. Albert Moll, once the haughty promoter of degeneracy, was among those who lost their medical licence and was thereby banned from the medical profession. He was forced to adopt the middle name Israel. In one of the strange coincidences that history sometimes bequeaths to us, he would die lonely and impoverished on the same day as his fellow warrior against the Europeans, Sigmund Freud. Baptized for social expediency in the 1890s, access to the local church cemetery was refused; the pastor in charge refused to speak at Moll’s grave.

Jewish sexology, it seemed, was on the brink of extinction. But it would live on in exile, along with other poisonous doctrines, with the Frankfurt School. After the war it would return, with Horkheimer and Adorno, to Frankfurt, where the Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science would be re-established and then led by their protégé Volkmar Sigusch. Since taking on the leadership of the Institite, Sigusch has acted as a theorist and expert on social policy issues, and he has played a key role in liberalizing Germany’s laws penalizing homosexuality. Until 2006, Sigusch led Frankfurt University’s Institute for Sexual Science and its associated sexual medicine clinic. In 2005, he published Neo-sexuality: On the Cultural Change of Love and Perversion. In early March 2011, he released his new book Searching for Sexual Freedom. Despite his non-Jewish ethnicity, these works reveal that he is the spiritual and ideological son of Moll, Bloch, Hirschfeld and Eulenberg.

Surveying the contemporary social and cultural landscape in Western society, we see a much more radical departure from the measures advocated by Ellis, one of sexology’s founding fathers. And more than a century following from the first efforts of Moll to bring about a sexual revolution, we find ourselves once more wrestling with the hydra of Jewish sexology. As hinted at above, the modern Russian state has probably come closest to implementing measures in line with Ellis’ recommendations. Homosexual relations were decriminalized in 1993, but the state has consistently refused permission for “Pride” parades (the “flouting” warned against by Ellis) to take place. Most importantly, since 2006 Russia has also introduced legislation restricting the distribution of materials promoting sexually inverted lifestyles and behaviors to children as an extension to existing child protection laws. Homosexual couples cannot adopt children and cannot marry. While Russia has been harshly criticized and even fined by the European Court of Human Rights for these measures, the country is still remarkably lenient by Ellis’ standards. Single homosexuals are permitted to adopt children, sexual inversion was declassified as a mental illness in 1999, and those suffering from metamorphosis sexualis paranoica have been indulged with surgery and permitted to change their legal gender since 1997. One suspects that Russia will continue to be portrayed as a “civil rights” boogeyman by the sexologists and their agents until they fall into line with the pluralist zeitgeist.

To conclude, it may be worth remarking on the discussion of the desirability of there being homosexuals in the Nationalist movement. I don’t speak for The Occidental Observer, but I do speak for myself when I advise against the involvement of sexual inverts in the movement. Since arguments in favor of such involvement have been advanced, I feel that it is only fair that the opposite argument should also be given consideration. In this movement we are concerned with racial, biological and demographic fitness, and key to this is the preservation of traditional norms regarding marriage and relationships between the sexes. There can be no distraction from this focus, and no concession on any ground. I view any argument to the contrary as a mere echo of the claims of Moll et al. that they were “eugenicists.” There can be no subversion here. In this age of promiscuity, hedonism, abortion, and impending demographic oblivion, our future depends on it.

[1] F.J. Solloway, Freud, Biologist of the Mind: Beyond the Psychoanalytic Legend (Harvard, 1979), 314-5.
[2] V. Roelcke, Twentieth Century Ethics of Human Subjects Research: Historical Perspectives From Steiner Verlag (Stuttgart, 2004), 26.
[3] E. Mancini, Magnus Hirschfeld and the Quest for Sexual Freedom: A History of the First International Sexual Freedom Movement (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 29.
[4] A. Killen, Berlin Electropolis: Shock, Nerves and German Modernity (University of California Press, 2006), 63.
[5] Solloway, Freud, Biologist of the Mind: Beyond the Psychoanalytic Legend (Harvard, 1979), 300.
[6] E.R. Dickson, Sex, Freedom and Power in Imperial Germany, 1880-1914 (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 155.
[7] Ibid, 156.
[8] Ibid, 157.
[9] Mancini, Magnus Hirschfeld and the Quest for Sexual Freedom, 30.
[10] Ibid, 4.
[11] Ibid, 160.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid, 4.
[14] Ibid.
[15] E.R. Dickson, Sex, Freedom and Power in Imperial Germany, 1880-1914 (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 249.
[16] Ibid, 7.
[17] Ibid, 5.
[18] Ibid, 6.
[19] A. Killen, Berlin Electropolis: Shock, Nerves and German Modernity (University of California Press, 2006), 63.
[20] J. Glad, Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century (Hermitage, 2006), 133.

Ethnosuicidal Nationalists

Henry Wallis: The Death of Thomas
Chatterton. The subject of the painting was
the poet who died after he poisoned himself
“‪Even the pro-white ‘movement’ seems beholden to this irresistible death-wish.‬” —‪Joseph Walsh
The revelation has come to me that liberals, conservatives and white nationalists are, ultimately, on the same fucking page. The only behavioral difference between them is speed.

Gentile liberals, led by the Jews, are driving the train on the road to white extinction on high speed. Non-Jew conservatives are merely trying to lower the speed by softly hitting the break here and there to slightly hinder the liberals’ ways. White nationalists, already outside the train, are heading exactly toward the same direction but at a much slower, walking pace.

Let us compare the values of the self-styled White Nationalists with the real defenders of the Aryan race, the National Socialists:

• Hitler and the NS men organized themselves in a political party—the very first, elemental step to make a difference in the real world. The WN cyber-based “movement” on the other hand refuses to leave the homely comfort zone. Nationalists who are doing this: Every single “neonazi,” white nationalist, southern nationalist or conservative racialist today, including old internet sites such as Stormfront, American Renaissance, VDARE and Majority Rights. None of them has dared to form a racist party. (In the case of Greece’s Golden Dawn, they are not Aryans.)

• The NS men clearly defined their race as Germanic (which includes Austria, the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, Switzerland and even some parts of the old Soviet Union; furthermore, Hitler dreamt to share the world with the Anglo-Saxons, especially with the English Empire). Those who advocate WN on the other hand are predominately anti-nordicists, and anti-eugenicists to the core. Like the American “conservatives” of the Republican Party who treat mestizos as equals, in order not to offend Mediterranean sensibilities they refuse to acknowledge that the standard for whiteness is the Nordic type. Many have no objection to grant amnesty to the off-white population in Europe, even if that means the eventual mongrelization of the real whites. Nationalists who are doing this: Most bloggers and commenters over the boards, especially at the WN webzine Counter-Currents Publishing.

• Hitler and the inner NS party abandoned Christianity, a Levantine-inspired religion which only enfeebles the Germanic peoples. Many WNsts, incapable of radical departures from our parents’ religion, unabashedly proclaim their Christianity and have blinded themselves about the toxicity of the Galilean cult. Nationalists who are doing this: Stormfront, the Traditionalist Youth Network led by the two Matts, James Edwards of The Political Cesspool, Occidental Dissent, the neonazi Daily Stormer and even Metapedia.

• The NS men, even the Catholics and Protestants, gave up Christian axiology and became pragmatic Nietzscheans. On the other hand Christian and secular WNsts subscribe it: both groups strive to appear as the proverbial “good Christians.” The neonazi Carolyn Yeager and the historian Arthur Kemp even have tried to rationalize away the Germans’ legit will to conquer those Slavs who had delivered their nation to the Bolshevik Jews. (Clarification: George Lincoln Rockwell and William L. Pierce flourished before the term “white nationalist” became fashionable. They were not WNsts but rather followed the spirit of Hitlerian National Socialism. Neither subscribed the Christian scruples regarding our interaction with the radical Other.) White Nationalists who still subscribe Christian axiology: With the exception of VNN Forum virtually all of them. Moreover, like Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent and many commenters in those forums, racialists freak out piously when a lone wolf makes a scene leaving some enemy casualties behind. Even Irmin Vinson, who wrote an apologetic book about Hitler, did this. 
• Hitler and the NS men took for granted sexual polarity. Like all militaristic Western cultures they subscribed patriarchy—no woman was allowed in the leadership class. WN males on the other hand have become feminized beyond recognition. Most of them have no problem at all with the feminism that has been wreaking havoc in the fair race and the morals of the fair sex since the 1960s. The NS men had an absolute will to biological fertility. Feminized WNsts have no problem allowing career women in their conferences or practicing ethnosuicidal birth control. Nationalists who are doing this: With the exception of Andrew Anglin all notable WN websites and conferences, including the London Forum which admits women speakers, and even “revolutionary” or eccentric groups like those of Harold Covington and Sebastian Ronin.

Ethos. The German National Socialists simply and straightforwardly pursued the fulfillment of their duty to the point of dying heroically for the fate of their race. Like the Republican Romans their ethos was severe, Stoic and brutal. Feminized WNsts on the other hand still live under the illusion of the American dream, or the infantile pursuit of universal happiness. Like the late imperial Romans they are hedonists. They lack the Teutonic spirit of tribal sacrifice and the saying, “We don’t stand a chance unless our men become killing machines and our women birthing machines” sounds like antimusic to their ears. Nationalists unwilling to sacrifice themselves for the 14/88 words: All of them! Who lusts to become a bloodthirsty soldier or literally force our spoiled women to become birthing machines? With the exception of the late David Lane, Who treasures in his heart the history of the rape of the Sabine women which gave birth to the virile Republican Rome? 

Enemy #1: materialism. Hitler and the NS men pursued collectivism, honor, structure, order and militarism always in harmony with the aesthetic drive of the Aryan soul. In Uncle Adolf’s table talks for example the subjects of the most beautiful Western architecture, painting and classical music are omnipresent as the blueprints of what the Reich would be after the consolidation of his conquests. On the other hand, even those WNsts who think like real men and advocate a final solution to the non-Gentile problem pursue the freedom of the civilian societies and, to boot, the cult of the atomized individual: libertarianism. In WN forums you don’t see much criticism of larger factors of white decline than the Jewish problem such as the mercantile societies that degenerated in capitalism and, presently, full-blown hedonistic materialism: the uttermost corruptor of the Aryan soul for any honest reader of the History of the white race. Nationalists who have not assimilated the wisdom behind the saying “The Cathedrals were built to the glory of God; New York was built to the glory of Mammon”: countless, including Alex Linder of Vanguard News Network.

• The NS men aimed for war and conquest. Adolf Hitler said: “Any other course that does not lead to the strongest race ruling mankind, means mankind has passed the peak of its development and the end will not be the reign of any supreme moral idea, but degeneration into barbarism and eventually chaos.” Feminized WNsts on the other hand cherish democracy, pacifism and even the secularists make the sign of the holy cross when sighting true Aryan militarism. Compare the Führer’s words with a statement of Kevin MacDonald during an interview by a Jew (!) about the differences between WN and NS: “The white advocacy movement, as I see it, is not exterminating anybody. It is simply going to assert our interests within the democratic form of government that we have… It doesn’t advocate conquering Mexico, you know—anything like that. There are lots of differences.” White nationalists who think like the professor and his Occidental Observer: All Christian nationalists; the (European) New Right and the American New Right—which are not Christian—, the poseurs of Alternative Right (and Richard Spencer’s Radix). In his videos David Duke even shares the Christian sense of compassion for the colored races.

• Finally, Hitler and the NS men recognized the problem of cultural degeneracy in general and degenerate music in particular. Hans Severus Ziegler opened the exhibition “Degenerate music” in 1937 in Düsseldorf. Later, it was presented in Weimar, Munich and Vienna. The hedonist WNsts on the other hand enjoy themselves with the American-Negro phenomenon of rock antimusic. They are basically wiggers. The commenter whose words I quoted in the epigraph has also said: “Degenerate music leads to the extinction of the White race. It is racially suicidal.” Here is a good quote from Encyclopedia Dramatica:
Whereas the original Nazis actually maintained their German culture, celebrating, appreciating and reveling in German art, literature and music, modern-day Nazis get their culture by listening to a lot of White Power Rock’n’Roll. Never mind the fact that rock’n’roll is essentially African-American folk music borrowed by the White Man, and that “borrowing” something from another culture is the definition of multiculturalism and that Hitler devoted an entire chapter of Mein Kampf describing how the degradation of Aryan culture would lead to the extinction of the white man.
Nationalists who have promoted degenerate music: countless since the old podcasts by Kevin Strom, and more recently Alex Kurtagić, Greg Johnson and many, many more. Virtually all male hosts, guest speakers and listeners of WN radio podcasts love simian music, including some internet shows hosted by one of our best European minds, Tomislav Sunić. In a nutshell, presently all white racists, even the sophisticate, are inadvertently committing racial suicide.

My priesthood

From this post henceforth I’ll add further entries only if I see big events in the news (more spectacular events than the Jihad attack in San Bernardino, California, the last year). The inescapable fact is that in WN there is no actual resistance against the genocidal mass immigration of non-whites and forced fraternisation with them. Apparently George L. Rockwell was the last National Socialist of the West. Being a true Nazi involves forming a fascist party in Europe, or much more difficult, in North America—something that contemporary racists not dare do.

Trying to summon or discipline bourgeois racists that don’t leave the internet destroys the morale of the true fanatic: the priest of the 14 words. Unless these cowards become brave, unlikely in a race that is presumed dead, I must do something else. Pity!: with no Aryan men offering real resistance to the System I have no choice but to try to fulfill my priesthood alone.

Here’s my plan as a hermit. My books on childrearing [1] could help the future ethnostate, which capital should already be in Berlin had it not been for the Anglo-Saxons. But this State would only be reborn if this race repents from its unforgivable sin—if that is possible.

[1] I refer not only to Hojas Susurrantes (sample chapter translated to English inside this book) but to two more series of several books each: Extermination and From St Francis to Himmler. The first volume of Extermination, as I said last year, is available in Spanish via the Lulu distributor. By my calculations I should write another nine to fully explain why I believe that proper childrearing could prevent both mental disorders and even treason in the Aryan ethnostate.

My Weakness Is Strong

via Radix

The Alt Right boomlet may come to an end sooner than any of us expect, as the System moves to cut off our access to the outside world. 

It might begin with Twitter, which has been the scene of successful trolling operations such as #Cuckservative and #NRORevolt. Now, Twitter is moving to ban so-called “hateful speech,” which may “directly attack or threaten people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease.” Twitter claims it supports “freedom of expression and speaking truth to power.” But just as the job of the modern journalist is to track and punish dissent, so will a medium ostensibly designed to promote discussion shut it down.

The way this will be done is by suspending or banning an account that makes people not “feel safe” or that “harasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence another user’s voice.” The problems with this are obvious. First, we can take for granted that this protection does not extend to racially aware Whites (or even conservatives in general). Will “anti-racists” be suspended for their attempts to “silence” people? Hardly likely when every other mainstream media story is an attempt to “call out” and punish someone for saying something obviously true.

The second problem is more subtle and insidious. “Threatening” means whatever the weakest person in the room wants it to mean. After all, we live in a world where Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkessian lectured the United Nations on the supposed problem of “cyberbullying,” even though people (allegedly) sending them mean things on Twitter is the entire basis of their careers.

When you subsidize something, as many kosher conservative friends say, you get more of it. We live in a world that subsidizes weakness. Not surprisingly, we seem to be inventing new forms of it and professional victimhood is the only growth industry.
It may even be the defining aspect of our civilization. Earlier this Current Year, sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning claimed the “culture of victimhood” was displacing the rights based “dignity culture” that has defined the liberal order, since it replaced “honor culture.” In an “honor culture,” men avenge slights through the willingness to inflict—and suffer—violence. Most societies have been “honor cultures” historically, and it remains the norm among certain social groups. An honor culture is the Way of the Gang, or the Way of Men. But though it’s attractive in many ways, honor cultures tend to be dominated by self-destructive violence and instability. After all, the largest honor culture of today is the Arab world.

“Dignity culture” is the system where we have inherent “rights.” Francis Fukuyama postulated this kind of society satisfies our desire for recognition, or thymos, and thus constituted the End of History. Rather than private vengeance, we look to the state to solve our disputes and generally pursue our own rational well-being.

But as the state expands, the demands for official intervention have grown. As racial and cultural diversity undermine trust, potential conflicts increase. More importantly, as it becomes economically more attractive to be a victim than a worker, people create ever more elaborate forms of categorization (dragon kin, etc.) and ever more petty forms of “microaggressions.” As Michael Enoch observers, this is simply the manipulation of language for the purpose of rent-seeking.

Conservatives, as they so often do, miss the point. Reacting to the recent spectacle of the mostly Black protests on college campuses, conservatives call the students “wimps” or “pussies,” sometimes via crappy memes featuring liberal Hollywood actors. They argue these students and social justice warriors’ lives are easy compared to people around the world. And many complain how in the good old days, 18 year olds would bravely go fight and die to defeat Nazis, instead of demanding protection sexism and racism.

But they have it backwards. Even an elite soldier who has taken life and faced down death takes orders from these supposed cowards. A man can deadlift 500 pounds, but if he depends on his job to survive, he is ultimately weaker than the transsexual student intern who reports him to the human resources manager. And moral disarmament and the chains of gold around of all us ensure this hierarchy will survive for years to come.

At the same time, though they take advantage of this hierarchy, leftists pretend they have transcended it. Within their organizations, the best way to secure leadership is to be the most vociferous in denying any leaders actually exist. Tactics from the “progressive stack” to “calling out” newly invented “isms” are just various ways of securing a place in the status system you ostensibly repudiate. And power shifts quickly. In a matter of weeks, Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner went from “stunning and brave” to a problematic and “privileged” oppressor.

We even have degenerate celebrities who attempt to use this trick of appearing as low-class victims. Senator Chuck Schumer’s cousin Amy is fat, unattractive, and constantly talks about how unpleasant she is; therefore, we have to pretend she’s a comedian, entertain her views on gun control, and regard her as some kind of feminist activist. Carrie Fisher’s publicity work for the recent Star Wars movie mostly consisted of her bragging how obese and unattractive she’s become, even though her career (such as it was) was built upon her serving as a sex symbol for geeks. Somehow, this constitutes a blow against the patriarchy and increases her status.

This has even moved into presidential politics. The media is even trying to shame Donald Trump on the grounds that his supporters have allegedly emailed mean things to people. More broadly, Trump is hated because he is attempting to sell himself as unapologetically successful, powerful male who gets things done. His “kingly appeal,” as Peter Brimelow phrased it in an interview, offends those who prefer the passive-aggressive approach of a Hillary Clinton. Many Americans are comfortable with tyranny, but they will not abide a crown.

All societies incorporate hypocrisy. Ours is built upon it. Those who enjoy the benefits of an empire more powerful and invasive than any in history protect their status by concealing it in the cloak of victimhood. It appears the indirect approach is more effective when it comes to securing authority over others.

Meanwhile, the Right defends hierarchy as an ideal and an aesthetic even as we are all but powerless. From the young edgelords reading Might is Right to those fashy haircuts, we’ve championed a certain aesthetic, even though revealing our power level to the wrong person will cost us a job.

One could call this LARPing or even pathetic. Our enemies often do. But I’d simply call it honest. Racially aware whites—and only racially aware Whites—understand the real nature of the System and see that the reality of power hasn’t changed.
What stops power is power. What we call “liberty” is merely a space where force checks force. Many American conservatives seriously believe that “the Constitution” is what gives them the right to free speech or to own a gun. But whatever the problems with the American Founding, at least the Revolutionary generation understood words on paper meant nothing unless backed by willpower and weapons.

All of us live with the consequences of this hard reality every day. Anyone reading this faces real, concrete consequences for dissent, not just mean words. Violence is used against us. We can’t expect on the protection of law. We can’t count on the sanctity of property or words on a contract. We are subject to open incitement, with people openly fantasizing or even explicitly calling for our death and genocide. Claiming to be a victim brings us further scorn, not pity and money. It’s obvious but important that if they were attacking anyone other than Whites, a “mainstream source” like Salon would be the most extreme “hate site” on the Internet.

We also know it is the precisely the most privileged groups who try to use the concept of “privilege” as a weapon. Pointing out how Whites generally make more money and are imprisoned less than blacks is taken as proof of “White privilege,” but merely noticing the high income and influential positions of Jews is sufficient to constitute proof of anti-Semitism or “Jew hatred.”

Peter Brimelow once commented that Americans are already acting like an occupied population. At any moment, we’re all vaguely aware “they” could come for us, but what does that really mean? Though violence isn’t uncommon, usually it’s more subtle. Social shaming is an important aspect, but the Alt Right has grown sufficiently large such that even a person “outed” as a thought criminal will have a social network. The real threat is what Malcolm X (in reference to Jewish tactics) called “the economic weapon,” the threat of job loss, career destruction, and crushing poverty. Look at what happened to Frank Borzellieri.

Of course, there’s a limit to this. If a sufficient number of people are driven outside the System, they can constitute a counter-system. For propaganda purposes, it’s not a good thing if we are mostly just talking (and, unfortunately, fighting) amongst ourselves. But ultimately, building economic and mutual support networks is the best way to ensure we have a future.

More importantly, we have something no one else does. We have agency. We act. We create. We build new worlds in the ruin of the old. Every aspect of the current system, from the predatory financiers at the top to the non-White “activists” begging for handouts at the bottom, ultimately depend on White people.

The great lie of American race relations is that Whites somehow gain or exploit the “Black bodies” among us or depend in some sense on other groups. Who depends on whom? Just as we can judge a society by observing how people “vote with their feet,” we can dismiss the claims of racism by watching how all the groups who claim to be oppressed can’t wait to live among as many racist White people as possible. What vitality and power this system has left is drained with every second it continues.

And that’s why our approach to power can’t be like that of our enemies. Ultimately, power cannot be sustained on a weak foundation. We aren’t trying to scramble to the top of a collapsing pyramid. We are trying to build something that endures. More importantly, we are trying to build something that provides a meaning and an up-going, not the bitterness and rot characteristic of our so-called “elite.” The command for each one of us always remains constant, however you see your role in the struggle. It’s only two words, after all: Become Stronger. 

Vindictive Amazon Donates Profits from Chart Topping PEGIDA Song To Pro-Migrant Charity

via Britannia

A solemn hymn released by the Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West (PEGIDA) unexpectedly hit no.1 in the German singles chart in time for New Year’s Eve, but distributor Amazon has signalled their displeasure by giving away their profits to a pro-migrant charity.
The wordless hymn pushed even top-selling artist Adelle aside in time for the New Year’s Eve best seller list, as supporters of the anti-immigration and pro-Western culture group rushed to buy the single. While it has been panned in the left-wing press, PEGIDA founder and leader Lutz Bachmann reached out to his opponents in the mainstream media and thanked them for generating so much publicity for the song.
Yet some have been disturbed by the success of the hymn ‘Together We Are Strong’, including online music giant Amazon who have promised to snub PEGIDA by donating their cut of the proceeds from sales to a pro-migrant charity. A spokesman said: “Amazon’s profits from selling this song will go to a charitable organization for supporting refugees”, reports TheLocal.de.

The PEGIDA leadership have also vowed to give their profits to charity — although presumably not one that supports mass migration.

Such snubs to the patriotic group are by no means unusual. From the earliest days of the strolling movement elements of the German establishment have colluded to freeze the group out of public discourse, and a number have made symbolic protests to display their distaste.

One of the most visible signs of this is the turning off of street lights and illuminations of prominent public buildings when PEGIDA are walking or rallying nearby. Dresden’s opera house, which also flies banners displaying anti-PEGIDA messages outside and Germany’s left-wing establishment church most often indulge in these protests.

Erfurt Cathedral is illuminated by hundreds of torches and smartphone lights at a PEGIDA demonstration

PEGIDA members themselves have found a way to get their own back on these buildings, and illuminate the sites themselves with smartphone lights and torches.

2015's White Renegade of the Year, Angela Merkel: Betraying not just Germany, but all White Nations

via American Renaissance

Angela Merkel, the devil herself
AmRen Editor's Note: Our White Renegade award goes each year to the white person who could have been a champion for his people, but instead did the most harm to white interests. The 2013 recipient was Rand Paul; 2014 was Bill Gates. This is our third annual award, and our first to a woman. Angela “The Iron Frau” Merkel this year distinguished herself in her willingness to submerge her people in a wave of unassimilable Muslim “migrants,” and for that, we name her White Renegade of 2015. 

It turns out Enoch Powell was wrong. It seems that the supreme function of statesmanship, rather than providing against preventable evils, is to provoke them.

This is what this year’s honoree, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, has done. And no political leader has been so widely celebrated by the mainstream press and the global elite. She is Time and AFP’s Person of the Year, the Economist’s “indispensable European,” and “Mother” Merkel to a million of Syrian “refugees” and to the journalists who shill for them. She exemplifies the great dream of the post-European ruling class of the West: a political figure beyond politics, a national leader indifferent to nation, a moral visionary who defends the establishment. And just as medieval aristocrats could count on the Church to sanctify their power, so can Merkel count on today’s secular sermonizers to bless her efforts to turn Europe into a cheap-labor playground of bankers and merchants ruling over an Islamic underclass.


Mrs. Merkel began the year by ruling out debt relief for Greece, saying, “There has already been voluntary debt forgiveness by private creditors; banks have already slashed billions from Greece’s debt.” Her insistence that Greece essentially cede its freedom over fiscal policy in order to get a bailout and stay in the Eurozone led to catastrophic consequences. Unemployment in the Hellenic Republic is at about 24 percent, and a shocking 39 percent among people ages 25 to 34 with a college degree.

Of course, Greece is not without responsibility–even the main responsibility–for the crisis. But Mrs. Merkel’s primary goal seems to have been to protect German banks from the consequences of their own reckless lending. She hasn’t shown much sympathy for suffering Greeks.

Thus, the transformation from bankers’ enforcer to paragon of altruism has to be regarded with suspicion. And one can’t help but suspect Merkel had motives beyond moral signaling when she invited an unlimited number of Muslim immigrants into the Fatherland. When the crisis arrived on her doorstep, it was an opportunity to increase the power of the European Union over its member states.

In a sense, she was right to demand a common European response to the crisis, because Europe helped cause the crisis. The decision by European (and American) leaders to oppose Bashar al-Assad and to destroy the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya breached Europe’s outer protections and unleashed swarms of “migrants.” Greece, Italy, Macedonia, and other nations have been unwilling or unable to control their borders.

But the threat was always a preventable evil. The continent is under perpetual demographic siege from Third World nations that can’t compete economically and want to export their surplus population. If there was ever a time for Europe to unite in the face of a common threat and assert its right to survive as a distinct cultural entity, it was now. It could have been Mrs. Merkel’s finest hour.

Instead, she suspended Europe’s own rules on processing refugees in the first country of arrival and welcomed newcomers directly into Germany–as many as would like to come. Just as Barack Obama’s unilateral amnesty in the United States unleashed an unending wave of “refugees” seeking to escape from their own countries, Mrs. Merkel’s announcement triggered an unlimited crisis. According to the United Nations, an estimated one million refugees will have entered Europe by year’s end, and the numbers are likely to increase next year.

Instead of solving this problem by committing to a common European border defense, Mrs. Merkel granted the desires of “migrants” to participate in the German welfare system. This created a powerful incentive for EU member-states to pass along their migrants to Germany rather than detain them or send them back. She betrayed her civilization by massively increasing the scope of the invasion, all but ensuring the influx would spiral out of control.


Mrs. Merkel also tried to use the refugee crisis as a weapon against the independence of European member-states. She has called for compulsory and permanent refugee quotas for EU countries, even though it was her policies that prompted so many to come. She wants more EU authority over border control and perhaps even a common levy to pay for it. Needless to say, centralized EU border control would not create a perimeter against migration, but would ensure that no nation was allowed to escape demographic destruction.

Mrs. Merkel actually warned that closing national borders would lead to war in the Balkans. She lectured Eastern Europeans that “fences don’t work,” and invoked the memory of the Iron Curtain, seemingly oblivious to the differences between fences that keep people out and those that keep people in. Her plan for “refugee quotas” was an attempt to force nations such as the Czech Republic and Slovakia to accept unwanted people as part of the price for staying in the EU. As this is written, Germany is exploring legal action to force Eastern European nations to accept unwanted refugees.

Mrs. Merkel is not known as a forceful personality or an ideologue, but she has been strangely impassioned about the moral necessity of her policy. She has said that the question of accepting Muslims is “not negotiable.” She has framed the response to the refugee crisis as something “which can make us proud of our country,” implying Germans had nothing to be proud of before. Indeed, Mrs. Merkel, who was once captured on video showing disgust at the sight of a German flag during a campaign rally, bragged that the refugee influx “will occupy and change” Germany. She has repeatedly assured Germans that “we can do it.”


But why does she think Germany should take on this burden? Here we see the combination of two powerful forces, both working against the survival of the German people.

The first is the post-German stance of Mrs. Merkel and the European political class. Mrs. Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union is ostensibly a center-Right party but under her it has become a kind of absence of politics. Merkeln, the new verb “to Merkel,” was a joke among German young people meaning to do nothing, or to fail to make decisions. Mrs. Merkel’s entire political approach has been reactive, with notable flip-flops on key policies. Indeed, only months before she became “Mama” Merkel, the Chancellor was savaged by the media for making a Palestinian girl cry after telling her she could not prevent her deportation from Germany.

But Mrs. Merkel has been consistent about centralizing the European Union and guarding against nationalism. And here, she is protecting what the corporate leaders of Germany see as their interest. Some bureaucrats and businessmen have even convinced themselves that “refugees” are just what the economy needs to solve a “labor shortage,” even though experts have determined that they are essentially unemployable. In the eyes of the economic and political elite, the refugee crisis is a problem only if it endangers the European project of the free movement of goods and peoples.

This meshes nicely with the second factor, the “Anti-German” national identity of modern Germany. To be German, in the eyes of official society, is to be constantly on trial for the actions of your forebears. It’s not unusual to walk through university towns and see stickers proclaiming, “Death to Germany”–put up by Germans. The “Anti-German” movement features demonstrations in support of the bombing of Dresden and open calls to abolish the nation. Not surprisingly, it supports refugees because mass migration is bad for the country.

Shit Germany
“Shit Germany. Against Nationalism and German Patriotism.”

But the “Anti-Germans” are simply the most extreme manifestation of the official ideology. The German center-Right does not make even the implicit appeals to white identity common in America or France, partially because of what Bloomberg News called a “three-pronged attack from government, civil society, and the media” against anti-immigration sentiment. Mrs. Merkel herself is highly sensitive to anything that smacks of the “far right,” and a huge number of ordinary Germans are eager to help the resettlement process, or at least to be seen as helping in the effort to “atone for historical crimes.” Indeed, although the latest polls show that 57 percent of Germans oppose the open-door-to-migrants policy, a substantial 42 percent support it.

"No day for the Nation; no day for Germany."
“No day for the Nation; no day for Germany.”

"Everybody loves Germany. We don't."
“Everybody loves Germany. We don’t.”

Unlike the “Anti-Germans,” Mrs. Merkel opposes cultural segregation and parallel societies. However, she has unlimited faith in the ability of non-white Muslims to assimilate to European society, saying “religion” and “skin color” should not matter.
On December 31, 2015, Mrs. Merkel devoted her televised New Year’s address–which was to be posted online with Arabic subtitles–to the refugee crisis. She conceded that integrating over a million newcomers would take “time, effort and money,” and she’s right. Germany’s 16 states, many already struggling to balance their budgets, expected to spend $18.5 billion on migrants in 2016, and that figure was based on projected arrivals of only 800,000. But she assured her people that Germany had the economic power needed to meet the crisis.

The chancellor also had a warning for anyone who disagrees with her policy: “It is important not to follow those who, with coldness or even hate in their hearts, want to claim Germanness solely for themselves and exclude others.” She looked forward to the challenge of turning Muslims into Germans, concluding that “next year is about one thing in particular: our cohesion.”

But if the German past is a source of shame and if ethnicity and religion are not sufficient to define a people, what is the focus of cohesion? To what should immigrants assimilate? The answer seems to be to the economy. Mrs. Merkel, who is childless, seems to think Middle-Easterners and Africans are the solution to Germany’s aging population and low birthrate. Since discussions of racial reality and cultural difference are all but illegal in Germany, she may well believe what she is saying.

But knowing Mrs. Merkel’s short-term approach to politics, it’s doubtful she has ever had any real plans. The refugee crisis was a way for her to burnish her image, reinvent Germany as a “humanitarian superpower” like Sweden, and consolidate power in the European Union. She has not entirely succeeded.

For the first time in the 10 years since she took office, Mrs. Merkel’s own political base is threatened, as major cracks are forming in her coalition. She may have lost control over her policy, since members of her own party are now forcing her to consider a quota system for refugees. As nations such as Hungary and Slovakia hurry to build border fences, border controls may even be introduced within the Bundesrepublik itself: The interior minister of Bavaria is calling for the region to retake control over the migrant flows in its territory.

Mrs. Merkel has also unleashed powerful forces on both the Left and Right. Now that she has established asylum as a sign of Germany’s moral rehabilitation, the Left sees any restrictions as virtually treasonous. And the German “far right” is hardly idle. Refugee centers keep going up in flames, and the 800 reported crimes against immigrants recorded in 2015 were four times the figure for 2014. What is more, 70 percent of the perpetrators were unknown to the police. This is important because Germany operates a highly intrusive surveillance system against even peaceful “far right” activity, and is constantly recruiting new activists as informants. The refugee crisis has given rise to a totally new, unaffiliated–and violent–resistance movement.

Mrs. Merkel also can claim responsibility for fueling the growth of the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany party, which has recovered from infighting to become the third largest party in the country according to some polls. Needless to say, the fanatical German Left is fulfilling its traditional role as the street soldiers of the establishment by making it hard for the party to put on demonstrations, and the German government rushed to pass a law that changed campaign finance regulations so as to cut off much of its funding.

Perhaps the most encouraging consequence of the mass migration has been the reawakening of the PEGIDA movement, which had been dormant following a series of PR blunders and leadership resignations. By the fall, thousands of Germans were again taking to the streets to protest Islamization.


The refugee crisis has given real momentum to the German Right, but unless change comes swiftly, it may be too late for Germany. From the indulgence of Sweden to the assimilationist efforts of France, European nations have taken a variety of approaches in their shared determination to make a multiracial society work. All have failed. Indeed, Mrs. Merkel herself had declared “multiculturalism has utterly failed” in 2010, and the only thing that has changed between then and now is the increased risk of terrorism from followers of the Islamic caliphate.

Mrs. Merkel grew up in East Germany and participated in Communist Party activities as a young woman. Occasionally there are mutterings that she is somehow dedicated to “destroying” Germany or is fulfilling some long-term scheme. This is unlikely. She is heaping up the funeral pyre for her own country for the most utterly banal reasons. Her belief that anyone can adapt to the European way of life, that national identity is an obstacle to be overcome, and that everyone is fundamentally the same are the common wisdom of educated Westerners. The profound tragedy of our times is that perfectly ordinary and well-meaning people are hastening the destruction of their own societies.

So what is to be done about the refugee crisis? The cliché answer is to combat the “root causes of migration.” But the root cause of migration isn’t civil war or “climate change.” It’s inequality–of culture, religion, and ultimately, race. Less developed peoples will always want to “secure a better life” in the developed world. The only choice for developed societies is to resist demographic incursion or surrender. Disguising surrender as an act of moral virtue does not change the final result.

Mrs. Merkel is not a stupid woman, or, up until this point, an incompetent leader (by modern standards). But even a brilliant person will make foolish decisions if they deliberately refuse to consider certain information. The catastrophe unfolding in Germany and throughout most of Europe is the result of trying to wish away reality. And just as the Soviet Union collapsed because the markets don’t obey some bureaucrat’s decree, so will the current system collapse because human beings don’t act in accord with a liberal college student’s feelings. People are different. People aren’t equal. Race is real and has consequences–a truth as stark and immutable as death itself.

Unfortunately, death may be Mrs. Merkel’s legacy. She may have shown the End of History will itself end, as the Last Man (and Woman) invite catastrophe rather than secure Europe as a postmodern paradise. The Islamic incursion is an existential threat not just to Western Civilization, but to the Eurocrats’ vision of a cultureless continent-wide shopping mall. The status quo cannot last.

There is no guarantee the white race will survive this transition. Whites could submit to a new order rather than fight for self-determination. The long-term demographic consequences to Germany of this wave of refugees could be fatal. Mrs. Merkel may accomplish what the Thirty Years War, the Red Army, and Henry Morgenthau could not, and destroy the Fatherland once and for all.

If there was ever a time for Europeans to unite against a common threat, it is now. This invasion should be the catalyst for Western Man finally to cast aside the disputes and short-sightedness that have brought us to the brink of disaster. Unfortunately, Mrs. Merkel has transformed the main institution of ostensible European unity–the European Union–into the most dangerous weapon in the hands of our opponents. If whites survive, it will be thanks to the bravery of independent national leaders such as those in Hungary, Poland, and other Eastern European countries still fighting to preserve their freedom from Brussels. Even the refugee crisis has become, in the end, yet another intra-European struggle, yet another sickening brothers’ war.

For that reason, more than any other, Angela Merkel is White Renegade of the Year.