Jan 8, 2016

Dr. Frank Salter on Germany’s Jeopardy

via The Occidental Observer

Dr. Frank Salter has produced a sober, scientifically based assessment of the likely consequences of Germany’s disastrous policy toward  migration from the Middle East and Africa. The subtitle appropriately asks, “Could the Immigrant Influx ‘End European Civilization’?” The answer, of course, is that it could and may well do so if current trends are not reversed.

Although terrorism and the recent mass sexual assaults in Germany certainly focus the public’s attention on the costs of massive unselected immigration, the far greater problem is loss of a traditional sense of national identity as bound up with a particular people and culture, “leaving citizenship a hollowed-out legalism” — what is often termed the “proposition nation” concept of citizenship dedicated only to abstract Western ideals of freedom and democracy rather than protecting the interests of a particular people. The ideology of the proposition nation is now well established among the political and intellectual elites throughout the West, its plausibility deriving from what are seen as the past disasters resulting from nationalism in Europe. Indeed, as Dr. Salter notes, atoning for National Socialism is an explicitly stated goal of Angela Merkel’s migration policy.

The outcome of the present policies is utterly predictable decline in social cohesion, with far-ranging costs in terms of increased conflict and crime, and a lessened willingness and ability to contribute to public goods such as welfare and health care. Dr. Salter reviews data showing that ethnic diversity is correlated with a host of undesirable outcomes. People in ethnically diverse societies invest less in social capital, they cooperate less, are less prone to engage in volunteer work, and there is less trust among citizens. He reminds us that evolution occurred in ethnically homogeneous groups. The hunter-gatherer mentality that is a critical strand of European culture evolved in small, face-to-face groups where trust and reputation were absolutely critical.

But even in the larger, ethnically homogeneous societies that characterized Europe until recently, there were high levels of trust and cooperation, resulting in willingness to spend on an array of social welfare programs, such as national health insurance. While the migrants who are making Europe increasingly diverse benefit from these programs and are often dependent on them, the prediction is that such programs will be discontinued or underfunded in the future as there is less willingness to contribute to such public goods for people who are unlike self. Minimally, the White citizens — who will disproportionately be paying taxes to support these programs — will be less willing to contribute to programs that are disproportionately used by the migrants and their descendants.

Dr. Salter lists some of the consequences of conflict in Europe — ethnic segregation and no-go areas in France, the sexual exploitation scandals in the UK. Right now the massive sexual assault in Germany from very recent migrants is  making headlines — finally, after a 4-day blackout. Some stories are so big that they just can’t be suppressed by what the Germans call the “lying media.” But, as Dr. Salter notes, it will likely be worse in the second generation, pointing to data showing that second-generation children are vastly more likely to commit crimes.

Thilo Sarrazin has already warned Germans about the consequences of non-European immigration in his book Germany Abolishes Itself. 
Sarrazin documented the slow pace of integration of Turkish immigrants into German society and economy, their disproportionate reliance on government welfare and their higher fertility. He found that slow assimilation was caused by the Islamic religion and lower educational outcomes were caused by persistent ethnic tradition.[xvi] When he wrote this, Angela Merkel was already German Chancellor. She condemned Sarrazin and endorsed his removal from the Deutschebank board, an omen of her 2015 radicalism and intolerance.
Given the (genetically influenced) low IQ and academic achievement of the new immigrants compared to native Germans, there will be ethnic stratification in which ethnicity is correlated with social class — a poisonous situation indeed. As we have noted many times on TOO, this results in the racialization of politics in which people vote along racial/ethnic lines. And because realistic, scientifically based assessments of ability have been purged from the media in favor of leftist narratives of victimization, the poor economic achievement of non-Whites is ascribed to invidious and pervasive White racism. As Dr. Salter notes,
By the second generation poorer immigrant groups, especially those that are culturally or racially visible, become susceptible to radicalization by ideologies that legitimate grievances. These ideologies help immigrants rationalise their low socioeconomic status and sense of alienation by making them out to be victims of white racism. The ideologies are acquired from universities, schools, the media, social workers, politicians and ethnic leaders.
And because this has been a top-down revolution engineered by elites, citizens are not given a a meaningful opportunity to vote on issues like immigration policy. Nationalist parties have been formed throughout Europe, but they are vilified by elites in the media and are quarantined in legislatures, so that their influence is minimized. Only an absolute majority will change the situation, and the new immigrants become voters who will support parties that continue these immigration policies and continue the generous welfare benefits. Indeed, Muslims were crucial to the election of traitorous French President François Hollande.

Dr. Salter also notes that ethnic diversity results in loss of civil rights because there are calls for ending traditional liberal freedoms, such as free speech, including especially by nativists who criticize immigration policy. Indeed, the first response after the Cologne attacks was not only to scrub media reports of any mention of the ethnic origins of the criminals, but also to delete Facebook messages that commented on the ethnic nature of the attacks. This is a Tweet I put out on January 2 when the media were still in containment mode:
Laws infringing on free speech, particularly free speech related to immigration and, of course, the holocaust, are already in place in many areas of Europe. The situation will only get worse. Social media are now being policed. As a recent Washington Post article noted:
German authorities … have reached a deal with Facebook, Google and Twitter to get tougher on offensive content, with the outlets agreeing to apply domestic laws, rather than their own corporate policies, to reviews of posts.
It’s predictable that the response to incidents such as the mass sexual assaults in Cologne, Hamburg, and Stuttgart will be enhanced police presence. And when an army of police actually prevent an outbreak of violence, it  will be greeted as a triumph of multiculturalism by the media — “You see, it can work; things are going just fine,” despite the likelihood that many, especially women, will not attend such celebrations at least in the near future. And what a price to pay for being able to have public events. New Year’s Eve celebrations in many areas were marvels of police state surveillance. This is not the culture we want to live in.

A theme of TOO is that Jewish organizations have universally continued to advocate for high levels of immigration and altruistic refugee policies while simultaneously advocating intensification of police-state type controls on thought and behavior to ensure Jewish security (see Andrew Joyce’s “On the return of the protected Jewish minority in Europe”). Having your cake and eating it too.

In the long run, multiculturalism can’t exist without powerful social controls on speech and behavior. As I noted in The Culture of Critique in a passage on the future of multiculturalism in the U.S.,
One may expect that as ethnic conflict continues to escalate in the United States, increasingly desperate attempts will be made to prop up the ideology of multiculturalism with sophisticated theories of the psychopathology of majority group ethnocentrism, as well as with the erection of police state controls on nonconforming thought and behavior. (Chapter 8, pp. 310-311)
Dr. Salter makes the important point that the genetic tendencies underlying the decline in social cohesion are a constant, whereas cultural variables (such as the high-flown moral rhetoric accompanying the welcoming of immigrants) can change quickly.

Indeed culture can change quickly, and we must hope that it will. But a major force upholding the current dispensation is the media. He points out that a media monopoly is necessary for maintaining the current attitudes on immigration and has been in place for decades — another major theme of TOO and one where we emphasize Jewish influence and Jewish ethnic identity as a critical factor.

It comes as no surprise that Merkel et al. frame their policy in terms of love for humanity, but in fact it is a cruel policy, likely to produce suffering across Europe.
She sells her open door policy as humanitarian. But in reality this is a cruel policy likely to produce suffering across Germany and Europe. She has failed to consider the interests of individual European nations or of Europe as a whole. Europe’s political class has, in effect, embraced the most aggressive form of multiculturalism, in which the establishment forms an alliance with minorities to dominate the majority.
The suffering the open door policy will bring – the inequality, including the special evil of ethnic stratification, the collapse of welfare, the crime, the slums and no-go areas, the degradation of women, the racialization of politics, the decline in wages, the loss of national cohesion, the growing sense of loss and alienation among Germans and immigrants alike, the accelerated replacement of Europeans in their ancient homelands, the constriction of civil rights and the pervasive chaos – all of this will last for generations.
Merkel is doubly cruel because she is stripping developing societies of their more educated and industrious people. The inevitable fall in European foreign aid will hurt poor countries around the world, caused by the stagnation of European economies and decline in social capital.
The question remaining is how long before the political reaction becomes intense enough to defeat the political/media/academic class. If this reaction fails to materialize, it will indeed be the end of Western Civilization.

A transcript of Dr. Salter’s video may be found on his website, Social Technologies.

Is Trump a Conservative?, If so, What Does "Conservative" Mean?

via traditionalRight

One of the raps against Donald Trump frequently trotted out by some of his conservative critics, often supporters of one of the more traditional conservative candidates, is that he is not really a conservative. Some even call him a liberal. Yet despite this charge, Trump continues to gain the support of prominent conservatives whose conservative credentials it is difficult to impugn. 

For example, Trump recently garnered the support of former congressman Virgil Goode, who was the 2012 Presidential nominee of the Constitution Party. It’s hard to question the conservative credentials of a Constitution Party Presidential nominee. He has also landed the endorsement (or virtual endorsement) of prominent conservative scholar William Lind. Lind is a leading theorist of the concept of Fourth Generation warfare, and is arguably the primary person responsible for the increased recognition of the phenomenon of cultural Marxism that besets our modern discourse. Trump has also been endorsed by longtime conservative movement stalwart, Phyllis Schlafly, whose conservative credentials need no elaboration.  I could go on, but this should suffice to illustrate my contention. 

So is Trump a conservative, and if not, why is he racking up support from notable conservatives and continuing to dominate polls of potential Republican Party voters? Well, the answer is both yes and no. It depends on what you mean by conservative, but I believe Trump is a conservative in the most meaningful sense. 

I attempted to explain Trump’s politics in a couple of past essays. His politics are really not as inscrutable as some believe. They just don’t fit tidily into our current Red and Blue boxes. Briefly, the key to understanding Trump’s politics is to focus on his economic nationalism. This has been a part of his rhetoric since he first became a public figure in the 1980s and is undoubtedly authentic. But Trump appears to view this as a common sense, tough minded position, not an ideological one. It is important to recognize that Trump is not an ideologue. His focus is on getting things done, and he is results-oriented. While he has long flirted with politics, he has not historically immersed himself in the conservative milieu, nor the liberal milieu for that matter. He has clearly tailored some of his current positions to fit the base of the party whose nomination he is seeking, such as gun control and abortion, but he has never donned the mantle of purist crusader for laissez-faire economics or government-slashing spending hawk because those positions would conflict with his economic nationalism and his focus on outcomes rather than pure principle. 

Consider, for example, Trump’s past support of universal health care, a position often raised by his conservative critics. This was not likely a position he arrived at based on an ideological commitment to liberalism because that wouldn’t fit the known pattern. Rather it likely was an extension of his patriotic economic nationalism, something along the lines of “A great country like America can have a great health care system that takes care of all its citizens.” Remember that before the Affordable Care Act, universal coverage per se polled well. People just don’t seem to like the details when you attach a name to it, like HillaryCare or ObamaCare. The point being that Trump’s position on universal health care was likely not evidence of an ideological liberal disposition, but rather a roll-up-our-sleeves-and-get-it-done outcome based approach. What the conservative box checkers need to understand is that a lot of the electorate is similarly non-ideological. They may lean one way or the other and viscerally identify with the Blue Team or the Red Team, but they are not dogmatic ideologues.

Trump’s positions and rhetoric place him firmly in the category of Middle American Radical (MAR), as are many of his supporters. He just happens to also be a billionaire. MARs are a well described and relatively large demographic. It’s curious that so many journalist and pundits have missed this relationship and are still struggling to characterize Trump. Liberal columnist Ezra Klein was one of the first to pick up on Trump’s particular policy mix in this article he wrote for Vox, about which I thought at the time, “In other words, what (late conservative columnist) Sam Francis was saying 20 years ago.” Liberal John Judis expanded on the idea in this essay for the National Journal. Judis cannot resist a little PC finger wagging, but beyond that it is an insightful piece. Of interest, I was informed by someone who was familiar with the relationship that John Judis and Sam Francis were friends despite their political differences, so this may be a reason for Judis’ insights. 

As a MAR, his conservative critics are correct that Trump is not your typical cookie cutter “three-legs-of-the-stool” modern conservative ideologue, but the problem for them is that what modern conservatism has become is generally a mishmash of policy positions that are often internally contradictory and as a whole have very little to do with actually conserving anything. The MAR position of opposition to mass immigration and opposition to international “free” trade deals, for example, both of which Trump has seized upon with great success, are more conservative in actual effect, in the most basic sense of the word, than is any amount of babbling about the “invisible hand” of the marketplace and cutting marginal tax rates. Trump’s supporters sense this. “Make America Great Again,” is an inherently conservative, reactionary really, sentiment. It speaks of loss for the worse and a need to restore.

As Russell Kirk reminded us, conservatism is not an ideology or hodgepodge of policy issues. Rather, it is a disposition, the desire to conserve what is or else restore something that has been lost. The angry masses in Flyover Country who are supporting Trump look around and see middle class manufacturing jobs going south of the border or overseas and their neighborhoods changing from mass immigration, more people they and their children and their children’s children will have to compete with for jobs, and they want it to stop. Contrast this to Rep. Paul Ryan’s foolish statement that Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim immigration “is not conservatism.” Well, actually, yes it is. What is not conservatism is throwing open the doors of your country to masses of new dissimilar immigrants, including groups that are known to be hostile to us. Only a muddle-headed modern conservative ideologue could miss which one of these positions expresses a truly conservative sentiment.

With the rise of Trump, this election has taken on a meta dimension that it otherwise wouldn’t have had. Partisan stakeholders always attempt to cast every Presidential election as a crossroads, perhaps the starkest in history, but in truth we only really have a choice between Elitist Globalist Neoliberal A and Elitist Globalist Neoliberal B. Trump represents something truly unique in recent elections. He offers a real choice between the elitist post-national consensus embraced by the Establishment of both parties, and a patriotic economic nationalism that truly challenges this elite consensus. 

So yes, Trump is a conservative in the sense that really matters. He wants to conserve and restore the nation state of America and not stand by as it turns into just another post-national administrative unit ruled by a globalist power elite. Virgil Goode, William Lind, and Phyllis Schlafly and many other conservative luminaries clearly get this. The conservative box checkers who are ticking off Trump’s fidelity to some laundry list of policy positions are missing the forest for the trees. They are on the verge of losing their country while they hand-wring about eminent domain.

Fighting for Appalachia

via TradYouth

The situation in Appalachia can easily be called the creation of a neo-colonial Banana Republic by big business interests and corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle. Banana Republics are defined as, “politically unstable countries whose economies are largely dependent on exporting a limited-resource product, e.g. bananas. It typically has stratified social classes, including a large, impoverished working class and a ruling plutocracy of business, political, and military elites. This politico-economic oligarchy controls the primary-sector productions to exploit the country’s economy.”  

Appalachia has been a Banana Republic in one way or another for over a century, and the global capitalists are now looking to transform the region into a fiefdom. For generations, the people of Appalachia have been able to use the bio-diversity and environment of the region to support themselves through home-based agriculture, hunting, fishing, and other means to support themselves and their families. But due to increasing levels of pollution, economic exploitation, and political cronyism, the way of life for millions of White Appalachians is under siege.

No region exposes Leftist anti-White lies of “White Privilege” quite like Appalachia. According to the latest census, over twenty five million people live in Appalachia with 85% of the population being classified as non-Hispanic White. If you remove the few metropolitan areas of Appalachia such as Knoxville, Tennessee which is a fifth non-White or Cincinnati, Ohio which is over half non-White you find that the population in places like Central Appalachia is over 95% non-Hispanic White. This overwhelmingly White region is the poorest part of America, has the lowest level of college education, and has decaying infrastructure akin to a Second or Third World country in some places yet is almost entirely ignored by both the media and the political class, save for the periodic drive-by poverty porn.

This environmental and human catastrophe is not an accident. It is the product of a specific plan by Big Coal and other industries to allow them and their stockholders to use, abuse, loot and exploit the region for their personal gain, collaborating with local, regional, and national politicians to poison the land and impoverish the people for profit.

Young people in Appalachia are growing up in a region that has a 20% poverty rate regionwide, and as high as 30% or 40% in specific areas in Central Appalachia. While the federal government enshrines racial discrimination against Whites through Affirmative Action, racial hiring quotas for jobs and government contracts, young poor Whites miss out on crucial opportunities to help beat cycles of generational poverty. The average American school district has $12,000 per pupil per year, but many Appalachia communities receive under $10,000 per pupil per year, reinforcing the cycle.

With the total number of coal jobs decreasing dramatically over the past generation, young Appalachians need to learn new skills both at the university and at the technical level in order to bring new economic opportunities to their communities. With an underfunded and unsupported education system, poor Appalachian youth have few options beyond service industry jobs, chronic subsistence-level welfare dependency, or being forced to leave their homes and families to seek opportunity elsewhere.

There is no privilege to be found in the hollows and hills of Appalachia, only an increasingly small number of jobs in the remaining mines and factories. The coal companies have no interest in supporting diversification of the region’s economy because that would mean competition for the talented White labor force which would increase wages and benefits for workers. With politicians being bought off by the coal industry, government programs of job retraining or investment are nowhere to be found. While millions of families rely on digging scraps of coal out of mountains that have been destroyed or chopping firewood to heat their homes and cook their food, the Fat Cats of Wall Street reap the profits of Appalachian coal and natural gas.

Mountaintop Removal is a relatively new tactic of coal companies and the final piece of their plan to utterly transform the region away from the people and a healthy environment. The tactic involves using explosives–over 2,000 tons of explosives per day throughout the region–to blow mountains into pieces so that coal companies can easily dig out coal seams buried inside the mountains.

According to government figures for 2005, “more than 1.8 billion pounds of high explosives were used in West Virginia and Kentucky alone, primarily in surface-mining operations.” The use of explosives for mountaintop removal has only increased since 2005, a testament to the nearly Biblical level of destruction that is being wrought to the environment.

Due to mountaintop removal, over 500 mountains in Appalachia have been destroyed, 2,000 miles of streams and rivers have been filled in, tens of thousands of miles of waterways and countless wells have been poisoned by heavy metals from coal dumping and over a million acres of forests have been leveled.
“Blow its [the mountain’s] top off, section by section, and then move the rubble with heavy equipment. Sometimes the forest cloaking the condemned mountain is clear-cut; more often the trees are simply scraped away, bulldozed into a pile, and burned. A pad is leveled, and a large drilling rig bores a series of holes. Into them goes a mixture of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. Prior to detonation, warning whistles sound. When the charge explodes, the earth shudders. The explosions may shake and crack house foundations, startle wildlife, and spray a large area with dust and flying rock.”
This destroys the environment and sends dangerous coal dust and heavy metals into the lungs and drinking water of local communities while destroying a mountain, one layer at a time.

Coal companies have a double incentive to not preserve the environment. Many of their coal claims are on inhabited land that would take going to court to use imminent domain or costly settlements to buy out entire communities. Instead of doing this, by poisoning the environment and mechanizing their coal mines, which has cut down hundreds of thousands of coal related jobs in the past three decades, they can force people off of their land so coal exploitation is easier and cheaper. Dozens of communities have been utterly depopulated due to environmental and economic conditions becoming unbearable. Depopulation of Appalachian regions is happening primarily due to the programs of Big Coal, not in spite of it, as their endless and disingenuous astroturf “Friends of Coal” media campaign says.

The Clean Water Act says that you cannot put toxic waste that is a danger to the people and the environment in the water supply of American citizens. By any account the current poisoning of Appalachia by coal companies is illegal. There were over thirty years of interpretation in regards to the Clean Water Act that coal companies, power plant operators, and other corporations could not “fill” waterways with poison.

The Clean Water Act policy changed with the administration of George W. Bush when he staffed almost every environmental agency with lobbyists and former executives of the coal industry so this interpretation was thrown out the window, opening up the path for corporations to poison waterways and communities almost with impunity. This change in policy was good for the bottom line of coal producers and factory owners but left the people of Appalachia in a position where both business and politics coordinated with one another to put profits ahead of people.

The Republicans are typically blamed for the toxic situation, though the Democrats are equally culpable and in the pockets of Big Business. President Obama has allowed mountaintop removal to continue, supported Free Trade agreements that ship jobs overseas, and has not tightened environmental regulations to protect the people and land of Appalachia in any meaningful way. While both main political Parties speak of providing opportunities, they are both simply facilitators of the elites’ economic and social agenda.

The drinking water is so poisoned in regions of Appalachia that cases of formerly rare types of brain cancer and other cancers are on a dramatic rise. Research shows,
“Mountaintop-removal coal mining allows toxic heavy metals such as cadmium, selenium, and arsenic to leach into Appalachians’ local water supplies. Research shows that ‘residents in mining areas – especially mountaintop removal mining areas – have higher incidents of cancer, heart disease, kidney disease, birth defects, premature mortality and other issues.'”
The government is protecting Big Coal from multiple lawsuits from communities, victims, and the families of folks who have died or become sick directly from the impact of coal slurry and other chemicals leaching into underground aquifers and wells.
Coal slurry and heavy metals that enter into the Appalachian drinking water leave water in families homes looking like this
Coal slurry and heavy metals that enter
into the Appalachian drinking water leave
water in families’ homes looking like this
It has been found that,
“At least 40% of wells on the Appalachian Plateau, and in about 70% of the wells near reclaimed surface coal mines of the region. Coal slurry, the waste left after washing and processing coal with water and chemicals, is highly toxic and can leach into groundwater. Up to 60 different chemicals are used to wash coal — including the now-infamous MCHM that spilled from a decrepit storage tank into the Kanawha River in January 2014 — as well as the heavy metals naturally present in the coal.”
This poison is not just impacting wildlife. It is costing billions in healthcare costs and destroying the lives of thousands of Appalachian men, women, and children.

Every year over a thousand miners and former miners die of what is known as “Black Lung.” This disease of progressive massive fibrosis damages the miners’ lungs from breathing in coal dust. Simply being in a coal mine is dangerous not only for cave-ins and the other catastrophes of being underground but because of the air the miners breathe. Statistics show thatsince 1970, when mine dust controls began, black lung contributed to the deaths of more than 70,000 miners.” These deaths are preventable with proper ventilation and safety equipment which would dramatically reduce the amount of coal dust breathed in by the miners.

Coal companies have been cited and fined tens of thousands of times to improve the conditions of their mines, but the companies would rather pay the small fines than invest in safety equipment.  The government inspectors in coal mines sample the air in mines to see if the operators are complying with Federal law and have found since 1987 that out of “113,000 valid mine dust samples. Roughly 52 percent of those samples exceeded federal standards. In 1998 alone, about 65 percent of the valid silica samples violated the standard.”

Due to the greed of Big Coal, we lose more miners to the negligence of their bosses than the United States loses in combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Almost all of the deaths of miners and former miners could be prevented if the coal companies put their miners’ interests ahead of squeezing a few more dollars out of each mine, but as Dr. Goebbels said “the worker in a capitalist state—and that is his deepest misfortune—is no longer a living human being, a creator, a maker. He has become a machine. A number, a cog in the machine without sense or understanding. He is alienated from what he produces.” Big Coal treats the miners as if they are merely cogs in a machine or a tool, to be used until it breaks and then thrown away and replaced.

Appalachia has become a Banana Republic of globalist interests. The people are abandoned in generational poverty by a political class that doesn’t care about the suffering of millions of White Christians. The environment is being poisoned and blown to smithereens by Big Business which wants to exploit the resources and people of Appalachia and then leave the region broken when all of the money has been wrung out of it. And lastly, the current institutions are not suited in any way to fight for the working families of Appalachia. There is an environmental and humanitarian crisis in the region and there seems to be only one group that can transform Appalachia and give hope back to her people, the Traditionalist Worker Party.

Our Party’s plan for Appalachia is one that puts the best interests of the long term health of the people, the region, and all future generations above the pocket books of the globalists. First of all, the coal and natural gas reserves should be taken out of the hands of international corporations that have proven themselves complicit in the murder of thousands of innocent people due to their own greed and criminal negligence. These corporations have been irresponsible with these resources in every meaning of the word. The God-given wealth of Appalachia should belong to the people of Appalachia and their children, not crooks on Wall Street. By nationalizing the minerals, gas, timber and other natural resources of Appalachia, we can ensure that the people and the environment are cared for.

A Traditionalist Worker Party run Appalachia will guarantee that those brave men who work in the mines and hollows will be provided a safe working environment with protections for their families, a living wage, and the respect they’ve earned.

Secondly, by nationalizing the natural resources, we will ensure that the money made off of removing and then selling the resources on the open market will bring the money directly back to the region that produced them. Currently, only a tiny percentage of the selling price of coal actually goes back to the communities in either tax revenue or wages to the producers’ employees and the rest goes into the coal bosses’ and stockholders’ pockets.

textgram_1392062780Nationalization would bring 100% of the profits back to be invested in the people and infrastructure of Appalachia. This plan will break Appalachia from being a Banana Republic and instead give the power back to the people to control how their resources are used, not foreign and outside interests.
Dr. Goebbels spelled out the vision that our Party has for making Appalachia once again “The People’s Community.” He said, “The people’s community must not be a mere phrase, but a revolutionary achievement following from the radical carrying out of the basic life needs of the working class. A ruthless battle against corruption! A war against exploitation, freedom for the workers! The elimination of all economic-capitalist influences on national policy.”

The Traditionalist Worker Party will seize our destiny and smash the exploitation that is currently holding the Appalachian people in bondage to ruthless capitalists and the globalist power structure.

Next we must position the Appalachian economy to move beyond coal. Coal is a non-renewable resource and the use of mountaintop removal shows how almost all of the easily accessible coal has already been mined. Our Party believes in supporting a return of industry to the region, creating opportunities for the unemployed and underemployed. By supporting economic protectionist policies, we can bring millions of jobs home while supporting a massive infrastructure investment so that the region can compete on the global market.

The people of Appalachia don’t need a hand out, they need a hand up. That is why investing in education, job training, and healthcare is so important. The international corporations and banks who have been raping the people and the environment will no longer be subsidized with our sweat, blood, and tears. Instead, that money will go into making the people and the nation great once again.

Our people need and deserve the same opportunities as the rich liberal kids who live in the gated communities of America. We will galvanize the entirety of the people in the struggle for economic social justice, our Christian principles, a healthy environment, and a future for our children. Appalachia will no longer be a Banana Republic of the elites. Through the vanguard of the Traditionalist Worker Party, Appalachia will once again be free!

The Tribal Mind

via Radix

Jack Donovan's speech from Become Who We Are (October 31, 2015).

What Derbyshire Worships as High-IQ

via EGI Notes

Cuck extraordinaire, John Darbyshire
This, believe it or not, is real, and not a parody.  Emphasis added:

Pyongyang, January 6 (KCNA) -- The DPRK government issued the following statement Wednesday:
There took place a world startling event to be specially recorded in the national history spanning 5,000 years in the exciting period when all service personnel and people of the DPRK are making a giant stride, performing eye-catching miracles and exploits day by day after turning out as one in the all-out charge to bring earlier the final victory of the revolutionary cause of Juche, true to the militant appeal of the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK).
The first H-bomb test was successfully conducted in the DPRK at 10:00 on Wednesday, Juche 105 (2016), pursuant to the strategic determination of the WPK.
Through the test conducted with indigenous wisdom, technology and efforts the DPRK fully proved that the technological specifications of the newly developed H-bomb for the purpose of test were accurate and scientifically verified the power of smaller H-bomb.
It was confirmed that the H-bomb test conducted in a safe and perfect manner had no adverse impact on the ecological environment.
The test means a higher stage of the DPRK's development of nuclear force.
By succeeding in the H-bomb test in the most perfect manner to be specially recorded in history the DPRK proudly joined the advanced ranks of nuclear weapons states possessed of even H-bomb and the Korean people came to demonstrate the spirit of the dignified nation equipped with the most powerful nuclear deterrent.
This test is a measure for self-defence the DPRK has taken to firmly protect the sovereignty of the country and the vital right of the nation from the ever-growing nuclear threat and blackmail by the U.S.-led hostile forces and to reliably safeguard the peace on the Korean Peninsula and regional security.
Since the appearance of the word hostility in the world there has been no precedent of such deep-rooted, harsh and persistent policy as the hostile policy the U.S. has pursued towards the DPRK.
The U.S. is a gang of cruel robbers which has worked hard to bring even a nuclear disaster to the DPRK, not content with having imposed the thrice-cursed and unheard-of political isolation, economic blockade and military pressure on it for the mere reason that it has differing ideology and social system and refuses to yield to the former's ambition for aggression.
The Korean Peninsula and its vicinity are turning into the world's biggest hotspot where a nuclear war may break out since they have been constantly stormed with all nuclear strike means of the U.S. imperialist aggressor troops, including nuclear carrier strike group and nuclear strategic flying corps.
While kicking up all forms of economic sanctions and conspiratorial "human rights" racket against the DPRK with mobilization of the hostile forces, the U.S. has made desperate efforts to block its building of a thriving nation and improvement of the people's living standard and "bring down its social system".
The DPRK's access to H-bomb of justice, standing against the U.S., the chieftain of aggression watching for a chance for attack on it with huge nukes of various types, is the legitimate right of a sovereign state for self-defense and a very just step no one can slander.
Genuine peace and security cannot be achieved through humiliating solicitation or compromise at the negotiating table.
The present-day grim reality clearly proves once again the immutable truth that one's destiny should be defended by one's own efforts.
Nothing is more foolish than dropping a hunting gun before herds of ferocious wolves.

The spectacular success made by the DPRK in the H-bomb test this time is a great deed of history, a historic event of the national significance as it surely guarantees the eternal future of the nation.
The DPRK is a genuine peace-loving state which has made all efforts to protect peace on the Korean Peninsula and security in the region from the U.S. vicious nuclear war scenario.
The DPRK, a responsible nuclear weapons state, will neither be the first to use nuclear weapons nor transfer relevant means and technology under any circumstances as already declared as long as the hostile forces for aggression do not encroach upon its sovereignty.
There can neither be suspended nuclear development nor nuclear dismantlement on the part of the DPRK unless the U.S. has rolled back its vicious hostile policy toward the former.
The army and people of the DPRK will steadily escalate its nuclear deterrence of justice both in quality and quantity to reliably guarantee the future of the revolutionary cause of Juche for all ages.
Juche Korea will be prosperous forever as it holds fast to the great WPK's line of simultaneously pushing forward the two fronts.

How to Prevent Massive Non-White Gang Rapes of Indigenous Whites

via Alternative Right

Feral Islam
Tensions are high all over Europe because of Muslim acts of terrorism and rape, the latest ones being the mob attacks on German women in Cologne.

While acts of terrorism will come and go, and may even abate for long periods of time thanks to the efficiency of our surveillance and police states, acts of Muslim rape are much less likely to cease. They will continue to be a regular and recurring phenomenon wherever Muslim migrants are housed, and can be expected to keep tensions between migrants and the locals simmering over.

This is because out of the vast numbers of migrants who have arrived in Europe last year – conservatively estimated at between 750,000 and 1,500,000 – and those who will arrive this year, the overwhelming majority are, and will continue to be, young men. One estimate is that 72% of them are adult men, with just 13% women, and 15% children. Many of the "children" are teenage boys, already feeling the first stirrings of sexual desire, while most of the adult men are in the more sexually virile or incontinent age groups of twenties and thirties.

In other words, the great majority of these "Muslimmivaders" are males of an age at which they think almost ceaselessly about sex, but without any sexual outlets of their own, such as wives or girlfriends.

Added to this, it is a highly significant fact that these young men are moving from societies where women are routinely covered up and jealously guarded to societies where they are allowed to wear whatever or as little as they like, and are unguarded.

The obvious outcome of all this is that those countries that are most accommodating to the refugees can also expect to be on the receiving end of having their women regularly raped.

From a right-wing perspective this is unacceptable for obvious reasons that do not need to be stated, but even from a left-wing perspective this is deeply problematic, as it means that the leftist goal of assimilating these non-Europeans into European society will become even more unrealistic and hopeless than it already is. Areas with large refugee populations are doomed to become increasingly polarized, as locals grow to distrust and hate the incomers and the incomers are taught to resent that.

Rape and sexual assaults, rather than terrorism, will therefore be the factor driving the two groups apart and keeping them that way, with the end result that migrants will become an increasing welfare burden and security risk.

Alt-Rightists, of course, have a simple and elegant solution for all this, but, as we are only a tiny minority politically, it may be more useful to address this problem in terms that our political opponents may be ready to concede, and by doing so gradually push them to a position of reductio ad absurdum.

So, setting aside the obvious solution of deporting the migrants (or locking them up), the only plausible way to prevent this rape tsunami is first to acknowledge the key fact of massive gender disparity among the migrants, and secondly to directly address the problem of sexual needs that this creates.

There are four obvious – and non-partisan – ways in which the problem can be dealt with, namely:

  1. Balancing the number of male and female migrants
  2. Providing local women
  3. Providing alternatives to women
  4. Chemical castration

Balancing the Number of Male and Female Migrants

This would effectively involve "headhunting" young, female migrants in the appropriate numbers from the appropriate countries. However, as these countries tend to guard their women jealously, it would be difficult to bring young women from these countries without also bringing their male relatives.

Also, from the point of view of avoiding future minority status for Europeans, bringing in female migrants to keep the male migrant company would be a disaster. One of the chief complaints about the migrant influx is that it is a major threat to the demographics of Europe. This is true, but it is a lot less true if the vast majority of migrants are male.

In a 1974 speech at the UN, Houari (Mohamed) Boumedienne, the President of Algeria famously said:
"One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory."
Without Muslim women, Muslim men lose their effectiveness as demographic time-bombs. While Germany and Sweden seem to have gotten the worst of the bargain as far as European states go, in the long run they may actually fare better than the UK, where the government has been allowing in smaller numbers, but usually with their own womenfolk.

Providing 'Local' Women

Without enough women of their own, some of the migrants will be able to marry or acquire local women, but the numbers will be comparatively low, while even those that succeed will face exactly the same problems that European men keen to start a family face with European women – demands for "careers" and other forms of "fulfillment" that limit sexual reproduction. Muslim migrants marrying European women will have reproduction rates just as low as European men, or probably even lower, as it can be assumed that many of these interracial marriages will become dysfunctional.

Muslim migrants will be much less able to compete with European men for European women. The allure of their exoticism and their sexual aggression will be more than overbalanced by their average lower intelligence, poverty, communication problems, cultural dysfunction, and other factors.

Not actually looking for migrant husbands.
Even in the most welcoming countries, with the most accommodating females, the Muslimmivaders are still going to face a severe sexual deficiency that will continue to push many of them into rape and sexual assault.

For this reason, those states "progressive" enough to welcome these "refugees" might also want to consider providing them with sexual release through the employment of professionals, namely prostitutes.

In seven European countries prostitution is legal and regulated. One of these is Germany (possibly because it has always had a lot of young male migrants). The other six are the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Greece, Hungary, and Latvia. In Sweden, one of the main destinations for the Muslimmivaders, it is illegal to buy sexual services, but not to sell them. All these countries therefore could easily find a way within their existing legal frameworks to provide professional sexual services for young migrant men as a means of placating them and reducing rape.

There are, of course, certain problems involved even with this highly "enlightened" approach. A commonly quoted estimate of the number of prostitutes in Germany puts the number at 400,000 full or part-time prostitutes, with 93% being female, 3% transgender and 4% male. 63% of these are foreigners, with two thirds of that number coming from Central and Eastern Europe.

Prostitute: German coping mechanism.
However, providing sexual services for migrants could provoke outrage from feminists and also demands for equal treatment from other disadvantaged demographics, such as the low-paid, the disabled, the unemployed, legal migrant workers, prisoners, and so on. But even if these groups could be excluded, the increase in demand for sexual services would still be vast and would force up prices, leading to a rise in costs for the German taxpayer. Of course, prices would eventually stabilize and even fall, but only after the number of prostitutes in Germany had swollen to take up the excess demand.

But providing free sexual services like this could also backfire in other ways; firstly by making Europe an even more attractive destination for Third World men, and by stimulating and exacerbating the sexual desires of migrants, who might start seeing all local women as prostitutes that can be had at zero cost.

Providing Alternatives to Women

Another way to deal with the problem of disproportionate numbers of young men, would be to encourage them to indulge in masturbation and other forms "virtual sex." This could be done by ensuring that they have secure private quarters with efficient internet connections and plenty of online porn.

Compared to the above suggestions, this would be a cheaper and more efficient way of solving the problem as the migrants would be performing most of the labour themselves, but this too has its drawbacks.

Frequent access to pornography might only help arouse their sexuality to new heights, with the result that they would then seek satisfaction in the 3D world. Also, watching endless amounts of pornography might lead to increasing moral depravity and mental warping, which could create a dangerous psychological type, drawn into ever more aberrant forms of sexuality.

For this reason, the pornography supplied would have to be carefully filtered to remove anything likely to encourage dangerous tendencies, such as rape porn, and frequent psychological tests would have to be conducted.

Chemical Castration

Prostitution and porn are hardly ideal, because rather than solving the problem, they deflect it. A more direct solution could be provided by some form of "chemical castration." This would, of course, be an affront to the “human rights” sensibilities of Leftists, who seldom think of the human rights of the women and children raped by migrants.

But chemical castration has had a long and respectable history, both in the prison service and the military, for preserving a degree of decorum and decency. Also. in a age of viagra, why should we not also have an anti-viagra if it can improve the situation.

Such sexual suppressants could range from mild "sexual sedatives" to more extreme concoctions. For example, a general mild sexual suppressant could be given to most young, male migrants to make their new lives more comfortable and sedate, while stronger sexual suppressants could be applied to anyone with (a) a criminal record, (b) a conviction for sexually threatening behaviour, or (c) those testing with particularly high testosterone.


Despite the obvious merit and utility of these systems of control, it is obvious that they are all "unacceptable" under present political conditions, so they are unlikely to be implemented. The inevitable result of this will be continuing toxic levels of sexual frustration and alienation among vast numbers of male migrants, exacerbated by the "sexually liberated" culture of Europe. This in turn will result in a steady stream of rapes and sexual assaults, leading to the heavy criminalization of the migrants and growing hostility towards them, making assimilation extremely difficult for all but a handful.

The pressure this will put on the self-esteem of the migrants will not only incline them towards rape and sexual assault, but also impel them towards Islamic radicalization, which, in turn, will lead to even greater polarization and the impossibility of assimilation.

The rape of Europa has just begun. Only through the ideas of the Alt-Right can it be stopped.

Not going away any time soon

Guenon Reader of Nietzsche

via Gornahoor

Rene Guenon
Only literature can give you that feeling of contact with another human spirit, with the totality of that spirit, his weaknesses and grandeurs, his limitations, his pettiness, his obsessions, his beliefs; with whatever moves, interests, excites, or disgusts him. Only literature can grant you access to a spirit of a dead man in a more direct, more complete, and deeper way than you would even have in conversation with a friend—as deep, as lasting as in a friendship. We never open up in a conversation as completely as when we face a blank page, addressing ourselves to an unknown reader. ~ Michel Houellebecq, Submission
In his novel, Submission, Michel Houellebecq refers to a philosophy dissertation, held at the Catholic University of Louvain-la-Neuve, entitled Guénon lecteur de Nietzsche (Guenon Reader of Nietzsche) by Robert Rediger. Over the past several months, I have made several efforts to track down a copy. A dear friend, an employee of the State Department stationed in Brussels, managed to locate a photocopy for me. When she stopped by on the way to visit her family stateside for Christmas, I was able to inspect it during her layover at the airport. Although there was not much time, I tried to extract its main themes.

The first thing to point out is the deep influence that Rediger’s dissertation had on Houellebecq himself. This is shown in the main themes of the novel as expressed through the voice of Francois, his alter ego. Furthermore, the dissertation brought out several inchoate themes that were filled out in Rediger’s later writings. Obviously, Rene Guenon was never a “reader” of Nietzsche. Rediger came to that conclusion when he wrote:
I don’t think Guenon was influenced by Nietzsche especially. His rejection of the modern world was just as vehement as Nietzsche’s, but it had radically different sources.


So it is not the sources that are of interest, but rather how Guenon and Nietzsche reached similar conclusions. Specifically, there was the recognition of the decadence of Europe, the failure of Christianity to forestall it, and the rise of Islam. Francois notes this:
The facts were plain: Europe had reached a point of such putrid decomposition that it could no longer save itself, any more than fifth-century Rome could have done. This wave of new immigrants, with their traditional culture—of natural hierarchies, the submission of women, and respect for elders—offered a historic opportunity for the moral and familial rearmament of Europe. These immigrants held out the hope of a new golden age for the old continent.
The USA is likewise in a state of decomposition, although the particular circumstances are quite different. The main difference, of course, is that the European more or less recognizes his situation while his American counterpart is blithely unaware of his real situation. Even those who call themselves conservatives in the USA are in the dark. Right wing talk shows are in a tither about Muslim violence although they, of all people, should be more concerned about those who can kill the soul rather than those who kill the body. Hence, they condemn Islam for everything in it that is traditional. For example, they emphasize the West’s concern for women’s and gay rights, while praising the separation of any spiritual authority over political matters.

Rediger wryly pointed out:
Their irrational hostility to Islam should blind them to the obvious: on every question that really mattered, the nativists and the Muslims were in perfect agreement. When it came to rejecting atheism and humanism, or the necessary submission of women, or the return of patriarchy, they were fighting exactly the same fight.


This shows up first of all in the end of patriarchy in the West. In Francois’ words, almost a direct quote from the dissertation:
At least patriarchy existed. I mean, as a social system it was able to perpetuate itself. There were families with children, and most of them had children. In other words, it worked, where now there aren’t enough children, so we’re finished.
Liberalism could overturn all the established institutions: the churches, education, the workplace, political leaderships, and so on. However, the attack on the family cannot be maintained, for without children, no society can continue to exist.

Nevertheless, liberalism is adamant, while birthrates plummet. There is no longer an organic community but rather a heap of unrelated consumers. Francois lists some examples:
  • The eco-responsible bobo
  • The show-off bourgeois woman
  • The gay-friendly nightclubbing girl
  • The satanic geek
  • The techno-Zennist
In other words, everyone is a “type”, trying overly hard for a sui generis identity. The reader can identify more. For example, there is a facebook group called “Liberal and proud of it”. Thus, it is not a well-thought out worldview, but rather a tribal identity marker.

Francois, despite himself, is a “type”, perhaps the aging professor or the effete intellectual. His own life exemplifies the sterility of the modern world. Rejecting family life, he mates with his students, or with call girls when necessary. The sex scenes are not intended to be erotic, but rather sad. His preference is for anal sex or else he is ejaculating in some woman’s mouth – anywhere except where a well-bred man would consider healthy and normal.

Assimilation and Transformation

Rediger then takes up a theme mentioned years ago on Gornahoor in The Prophecies of Guenon. In the Crisis of the Modern World, Guenon wrote that only Catholicism could restore Tradition to modern world. Rediger agreed with Guenon about the medieval tradition:
The greatness of medieval Christendom, whose artistic achievements would live forever in human memory; but little by little it had given way, it had been forced to compromise with rationalism, it had renounced its temporal powers, and so had sealed its own doom.
According to Guenon, Church leaders had forgotten the deeper truths of Tradition. Rediger goes further, asserting that the Church itself is actively engaged in subverting Tradition. He wrote:
By dint of the affectations, the playful caresses, and the shameful fondling of the progressives, the Church had lost its ability to oppose moral decadence, to renounce homosexual marriage, abortion rights, and women in the workplace.
Even Guenon, after having failed to make any impact on Catholic thought, openly converted to Islam. Although Guenon claimed he did it for personal reasons, Rediger sees a larger perspective:
Today this fight to establish a new organic phase of civilization could no longer be waged in the name of Christianity. Islam, its sister faith, was newer, simpler, and truer.
As Guenon predicted, the available choices are degeneration, assimilation, and transformation. Degeneration cannot continue unabated. In the novel, Houellebecq opts for a gentle assimilation and then a transformation. He foresees an alliance between the Left and the Islamist elements. That is not so far-fetched since liberalism believes it can use Islam to further erode Christian influence. However, in Houellebecq’s scenario, it is Islam that assimilates the Left.

Polygamy and the Social Order

Guenon was single-pointedly focused on the metaphysical elements, to he provides little or no insight into actual Muslim religious life and practice. Rediger, on the other hand, does expand on those influences, while, at the same time, adding a distinctive Western element to Islam. For this part of the dissertation, he relies more on Nietzsche than on Guenon.

Then, Rediger, also following Nietzsche, claims that Christianity is fundamentally a feminine religion. Rediger quotes Nietzsche from the Anti-Christ:
If Islam despises Christianity, it has a thousandfold right to do so; Islam at least assumes that it is dealing with men.
Rediger attributes the ideals of humanism and the rights of man to the dogma of the Incarnation. Now you may object that Medieval Christianity, which Rediger lauded, was itself patriarchal and masculine. Can anyone accuse Constantine, Clovis, Charlemagne, Arthur, or Boucicaut of being feminine. Moreover, the medievals admired the great pagan warriors like Hector, Alexander, Scipio, and Julius Caesar. Even St Paul regarded effeminacy as a sin. At this point, Rediger makes the only reference to Julius Evola that I noticed: he likewise claims that this masculine element in Medieval Christianity was due solely to the still existing remnants of paganism, but not to anything specifically Christian.

First of all, Rediger accepts Nietzsche’s classification of life-affirming and life-denying religions, of which Islam belongs to the former. He writes:
Islam accepts the world, and accepts it whole. It accepts the world as such, Nietzsche might say. For Buddhism, the world is dukkha, unsatisfactoriness, suffering. Christianity has serious reservations of its own. Isn’t Satan called “the prince of the world”? For Islam, though, the divine creation is perfect, it’s an absolute masterpiece. What is the Koran, really, but one long mystical poem of praise? Of praise for the Creator, and of submission to his laws?
Rediger again turns to Nietzsche to justify the Islamic hierarchical and patriarchal order. There would be a small cadre of aristocrats on a large base of common people. Destitution would be reduced due to the requirement of alms-giving. Also, the extended family would be the “first responders”, so to speak, in the event of the tragedies of life. These customs would reduce the size of the welfare budget. Unemployment would be reduced as more women left the workplace to stay at home, raising children.

Polygamy, too, is understood as the will to power. The stronger and the most genetically fit would have more wives, hence more children. Of course, this means that some men will have no offspring at all. This brings to mind what we recently wrote about Social Surgery. To what extent does the community have the right to regulate the genetic makeup of its members, assuming the goal is the common good?

At this point, Rediger becomes less convincing since he does not take his ideas to their logical conclusion. He makes a good point that men of all types and castes will select the same kind of women. For example, in mate selection, most men, regardless of intelligence or station in life, would prefer a Taylor Swift. Women, on the other hand, are more malleable in their mate selection; for example, the may overlook a man’s looks or age if he is wealthy or powerful.

Moreover, the woman’s attraction can be trained. Rediger, thus, wants to define intellectuals as “alpha males”, deserving of the better quality women. It is beyond belief that, in the West as it now is, that women will be attracted to studious Thomists rather than the team quarterback. However, on second thought, female students are often attracted to their male professors. Asian women, and to a lesser extent Latinas, are more likely than European women to find a STEM major sexually desirable.

To accomplish this, Rediger claims that there will be women who serve as matchmakers. The details of this process are fuzzy. It would be a simple matter to determine if Islamic countries are more biologically fit than Western nations. My understanding is that the opposite is sometimes the case due to the preference for cousin marriages. But perhaps Rediger’s Westernized, Nietzschean version of Islam would become the norm.

With a Whimper

Overall, the social structure is based on submission, beginning with submission to God. Then there is the submission to the social order, and finally women’s submission to men. Houellebecq sees the Story of O by Pauline Reage as the model for submission. He sees this as occurring without much incident. This is hard to believe, although, given that the 50 Shades of Grey has sold more than 70 million copies, perhaps there is a secret desire to be dominated.

Thus, the transition occurs not with a bang, but with a whimper. Why would it be that way? Some would say it is a matter of convenience, as the intellectuals and others take advantage of the new opportunities that open up to them. Rediger concludes with a different answer:
In the end, it was a mystery; God had ordained it so.
If that is the case, then the mystery of the three rings will have been solved.

Schoolboys at Auschwitz

via Western Spring

Imagine a school field trip in which a class of sixteen year-olds is taken to visit the fossil filled coastal cliffs of Dorset near Lulworth and Kimmeridge. As the group of students explore the rock strata composing the cliffs, many of them discover the shells of extinct molluscs and some even find belemnites and ammonites, all of which are labelled and placed in specimen bags to be taken back to their class rooms for further examination and study.
At the end of the field trip, some pupils will have not enjoyed the experience, they will have not really been interested and their course work and the dearth of fossils they personally collected will reflect this. Others however will have been thrilled by the experience and will be rewarded by high marks when the teaching staff come to examine their lengthy essays and the extensive array of fossils they collected, and this is how it should be.

Imagine another similar school field trip, in which pupils are taken to visit the site of the English Civil War battlefield at Naseby. The various locations and their significance are explained to the students and they are shown around the visitors’ centre museum* where there are literally thousands of relics of that historic battle on display. The battlefields themselves have been extensively combed for artefacts that might give a clue to the progress of the battle and the people involved and although the site is regarded as a place of historical importance and a war grave, much of the land is now actively farmed and occasionally more remains of dead soldiers are unearthed during the seasonal ploughing and digging that takes place.

As the students explore the battle fields one of the boys who is very keen notices something glinting by the side of the path and upon closer examination he realises that it is a brass button from a Civil War era soldiers tunic, he recognises it because it is very similar to the hundreds already on display in the visitors’ centre. He picks up the button and shows it to his friend and for the rest of their tour of the battle fields they both keep an eye out for similar relics and in doing so discover some fragments of glass from an old bottle and a piece of rusty metal that could be the remains of a spoon from that era.

The boys put these items in their rucksacks and take them home. They don’t regard their actions as theft, because they were like many tens of thousands of similar items strewn unwanted across the battlefields. These items, although thrilling to the boys, were nothing of any great note compared to the tens of thousands of virtually identical items that had already been found and which were already catalogued and on display together with larger, far more significant finds that had been made by generations of professional archaeologists and historians that had dug extensive excavations and thoroughly combed the soil.

Back at school the boys submit the items they collected together with their history project work on the English Civil War and their teachers are delighted with the enthusiasm of the boys and with the detailed descriptions they gave of what they had seen and found during the field trip.

Now let us consider what apparently happened in June of this year when a party of sixteen year-old students from the £15,000 per annum, Perse School in Cambridge visited Auschwitz in Poland, the site of the alleged murder of more than a million people as part of an alleged plan by the German authorities during World War Two to exterminate the Jewish people.

Auschwitz -11Like the battlefield at Naseby, the large site comprising the extensive remains of the Auschwitz concentration camp are regarded in some respects as a mass grave, and similar to Naseby but far more extensive. The site has museum facilities displaying, not tens, but hundreds of thousands relics and artefacts that have been collected and examined, logged and studied by vast numbers of historians over the more than seven decades that have elapsed since Auschwitz was liberated in 1945.

It would appear that during their tour of Auschwitz two schoolboys discovered and put in their pockets a number of insignificant artefacts, and according to the Mail Online, the teenagers now face “up to ten years in jail for carrying out activities related to the misappropriation of objects that represent special cultural interest, to the detriment of the museum”.

These charges are absurd. The items in question comprised some fragments of broken glass, some very ordinary looking buttons and a piece of rusty metal which has variously been described as part of a spoon or part of a pair of hair clippers. While it is possible that these items once belonged to inmates of the camp, who may or may not have died there, or may have belonged to the German guards, it is just as likely they belonged to people who lived and worked at Auschwitz prior to its use as a concentration camp, or they may have belonged to civilian workers who were involved in the renovation and maintenance of the site since the end of the war.

In any event, the items can in no way be regarded as of “special cultural interest”. A study of these very ordinary items cannot possibly shed further light on what happened at Auschwitz between 1941 and 1945 or in any way improve our understanding of events. There must be literally millions of fragments of broken glass in the soil of the Auschwitz site, hundreds of thousands of discarded buttons and any number of pieces of rusty metal, all of which will have been sifted through countless times already in order to salvage anything of note. It is therefore wholly inappropriate that the two boys in question were prosecuted for theft. At the very worst they should have been cautioned that their behaviour was considered inappropriate at this particular site and released after a stern warning.

Had the boys broken open a display cabinet and taken items that had previously been judged to have some significance or value. Had they torn buttons from the displayed tunic of Rudolf Höss the Commandant of Auschwitz, or had they unscrewed and attempted to make off with the famous sign from above the front gates of the camp, then a criminal prosecution would have been appropriate, but that is not what is alleged to have happened. It would appear the boys merely picked up from the ground unwanted discarded items that would have been regarded as unwanted rubbish in any other context.

Auschwitz 12These boys are being prosecuted in order to make a political point. In order to assert that because of the deaths of Jews at Auschwitz, that site must therefore be accorded sacred status. A sacred status that is not accorded any other comparable sites at which the people killed were none Jews. In short the prosecution of these boys is in effect a demonstration of Jewish supremacy.

The boys were originally intimidated into pleading guilty, but since their return to England their families have reconsidered what took place and having withdrawn their guilty pleas, the boys are now to face further prosecution.

Those who wish to elevate the Holocaust narrative to the level of religious dogma and who wish the world to regard Auschwitz and everything associated with it as ‘sacred’ should take note of the fact that everyone visiting the site will inadvertently take away worthless matter in the form of particles of dust and mud clinging to the soles of their shoes. Some past visitors may have inadvertently had discarded shirt buttons or fragments of broken glass wedged between the cleats in the soles of their boots and shoes.

Are all future visitors to Auschwitz now to be required to wear bio-hazard suits from which all of the ingrained ‘sacred matter’ can be recovered upon exit?
Are all past visitors to Auschwitz now to be retrospectively prosecuted for the suspected theft of ‘sacred’ dust or mud particles?

Are our government really going to allow two schoolboys of otherwise impeccable reputation to be dragged through the courts in Poland, and charged with stealing what is in reality little more than discarded rubbish. The ‘artefacts’ picked up by the boys were not ‘sacred buttons’ or ‘sacred fragments of glass’, nor were they ‘sacred fragments of rusty metal’, they were worthless, unwanted, and of no significance whatsoever. The boys’ actions, which would in any other context have been regarded as well-intentioned over-enthusiasm for the subject being studied, have been grossly misrepresented and this matter blown up out of all proportion simply to assuage the vanity and hubris of those who regard the Jews as a superior and more valuable kind of human.

It is quite absurd and a reflection of the way in which Jewish supremacism has permeated even the most elite institutions of our country that two boys from privileged backgrounds, attending a public school commanding fees of £15,000 per annum, should have been induced to regard even the supposed refuse of dead Jews, found in the mud and gravel of Auschwitz, as worthy of picking up and putting in their pockets! And now having committed such a crass act of self-abasement — exposing themselves to the risk of being branded ‘rubbish thieves’ — these schoolboys will now provide the humiliating spectacle of two sons of gentile privilege going down on their knees and pleading to be forgiven for their ‘heinous crime’ against Judeophilia.