Jan 21, 2016

Who Is Behind the Sexualization of Our Children?

via Renegade Tribune

Almost every mainstream designer brand is owned by a jew.  They must just be really good at making clothes! Oh, wait… that’s right, they don’t actually make them, but have goyim slave labor do it for them.

Let’s take a look at how complete their dominance of this industry truly is.


Jews have played a role in every aspect of the American fashion industry since the 19th century, when a wave of European Jews made fortunes opening up department stores in major American cities-from Filene’s in Boston to Goldwater’s in Arizona.  In 1853, a German-born Jew names Levi Strauss founded the first company to manufacture blue jeans; immigrants from the shtetl set up custom-made suit shops like J. Press for Ivy League students, captains of industry and Kennedy’s. Source


“As early as 1885,” notes Joel Kotkin, “… Jews, mostly from Germany, owned 97% of all the garment factories. By the early twentieth century Jewish domination of the ‘rag trade’ [in America] was virtually complete, with Jews accounting for between 50 and 80 per cent of all haymakers, furriers, seamstresses, and tailors in the country.” [KOTKIN, p. 48-49] By 1915 the “clothing trade” was America’s third largest industry, behind only steel and oil. [LEACH, p. 93] “Jews largely created the American clothing production industry, replacing homemade clothes and tailor-made clothing.” [SILBIGER, S., 2000, p. 46]
Now let’s see how jews have used their domination of the fashion industry to sexualize and exploit children.


In 1995 another Jewish garment mogul, Calvin Klein, who had a serious problem with cocaine and Quaaludes over the years [GAINES/CHURCHER, p. 208], was condemned by a range of parent and social welfare groups for an advertising campaign featuring images by Jewish photographer Stephen Meisel. Adolescent models, notes Henry Giroux, were photographed “in various stages of undress, poised to offer both sexual pleasures and the fantasy of sexual availability … Angry critics … called the images suggestive and exploitive, and condemned Calvin Klein for using children as sexual commodities. Other critics likened the ads to child pornography.” [GIROUX, p. 16-17] This was an old theme for Klein. Earlier suggestive commercials with and adolescent Brooke Shields had garnered condemnation from a variety of groups, including a feminist group called Women Against Pornography. (Klein’s key partner in his initial years was fellow Jewish entrepreneur Barry Schwartz. Another Jewish friend, described as Klein’s “mentor,” was Nicholas de Gunzburg, the “fur and fabric editor” of Vogue magazine). [GAINES/CHURCHER, p. 97-98]

American Apparel CEO Dov Charney ousted
This problem is not limited to Calvin Klein, but pervasive across the industry.

screen shot 2015-03-17 at 4.55.13 pm

We have this wonderful jew Dov Charney (pictured above) to thank for all of the sexualization of young White girls through American Apparel ads and catalogues! Charney has been sued for sexual harassment and rape of former models, one of which was a child.


These sick deviants think little girls should be modeling bras and panties. This image in particular garnered criticism due to it’s pornographic nature, and hints of the model being a school aged girl. This is not surprising coming from two jewish degenerates like Dov Charney and Terri Richardson.


And not only are the chosen ones in charge of the fashion industry, but they also are behind brilliant children toys like the Baby Bratz dolls thanks to MGA Entertainment, run by the jew Isaac Larian.


The store Tesco, owned by the jew Jack Cohen, was recently forced to pull a very inappropriate toy that they were selling to children. It was a pole dancing training kit, complete with their very own stripper pole. Just trying to get those children in shape I’m sure.


We also have the jewess Ruth Handler to thank for the creation of Barbie, which gives young girls unrealistic ideas of what a normal healthy body looks like.  We are now graced with the arrival of “interracial relationship Barbie” and “CEO Barbie”. They’ve got to train those shiksas at a young age.

And, of course, almost every single major cosmetic, hair, and skin care company is owned by jews.  Here is a list of brands owned by jews that I encourage you to start boycotting now.


And it doesn’t stop there folks. The jews have been exploiting children in Hollywood since it’s inception.

Whether it’s the “music” industry, movies, print ads, TV shows, or magazines, the jews have their tentacles wrapped around all of our children.

We need to remove their shackles and free ourselves from their suffocating grasp. It’s time to expel the parasite. It’s time to come back to health.

Mein Kampf: Multiculturalism Will Fail

via The End of Zion

Everything Hitler said was the Truth.

This can no longer be denied by anyone, they can only call him and us “racists.”

Well of course we are racist.

A Review of “Why the Germans? Why the Jews?,” Part 2

via The Occidental Observer

Part 1

Götz Aly’s envy theory of German “anti-Semitism”

As mentioned in Part 1, the central thesis of Why the Germans? Why the Jews? is that German hostility toward Jews in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was motivated by German envy at the rapid social and economic advancement of Jews. Aly builds upon the thesis of his previous book, Hitler’s Beneficiaries, where he argued that popularity of the National Socialists can be ascribed to the fact that “the majority of Germans profited materially in either direct or indirect fashion from the expropriation of the Jews.”[i]

Aly notes that the same argument was originally put forward by the Jewish intellectual Siegfried Lichtenstaedter, who, in attempting to account for the rise of National Socialism and its anti-Jewish policies in Germany, proposed in 1937 that the NSDAP “was a party of social climbers.” Jews were hated because they were competition for “survival, honor, and prestige.” “Anti-Semitism” in Germany owed its aggressive force, he claimed, to envy and the desire for social betterment. If Jews as a group were perceived as being “disproportionately happier” than other groups, Lichtenstaedter wrote, “why shouldn’t this give rise to jealousy and resentment, worries and concerns about one’s future, just as is all too often the case between individuals.”[ii]

Theodor Herzl
Theodor Herzl
This same essential argument was also advanced by the pioneering Zionist leader Theodore Herzl. Kevin MacDonald notes in Separation and Its Discontents that Herzl argued that “a prime source of modern anti-Semitism was that emancipation had brought Jews into direct economic competition with the gentile middle classes. Anti-Semitism based on resource competition was rational.” Herzl “insisted that one could not expect a majority to ‘let itself be subjugated’ by formerly scorned outsiders that they had just released from the ghetto.”[iii]

What made Germany’s Jews so enviable, Aly argues, was the way that they took advantage of the new economic opportunities that arose in the course of the nineteenth century, as the old feudal order gave way to the modern world. Nevertheless, in order to avoid the unpalatable conclusion that the German “anti-Semitism” of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was therefore rational, Aly argues that the underlying cause of this envy-fuelled hostility toward Jews resided exclusively in the psychological inadequacies and malformations of the Germans themselves. Thus, for him, it was German mental deficiencies, rather than any Jewish behavior, that propelled the German nation down a path that would supposedly culminate in “the Holocaust.”

German feelings of inferiority, political immaturity and national anxiety, combined with the resentment over the Treaty of Versailles, made them, in Aly’s view, receptive to the siren song of Hitler’s National Socialist Party, which emphasized entitlements for ethnic Germans at the expense of the Jewish interlopers. Aly asserts that even if many Germans did not initially agree with the National Socialists’ anti-Jewish views, they were reassured by Hitler’s visions of economic progress, self-sufficiency, and upward social mobility and signed up for a “criminal collaboration” between the people and their political leadership.

Aly’s envy theory of German anti-Semitism is ultimately grounded in a belief in Jewish intellectual superiority and German inferiority, which, ironically enough, was a view held by many nineteenth-century German “anti-Semites.” For instance Wilhelm Marr (who coined the term “anti-Semitism”) conceptualized Jews as “not a small, weak group, they are a world power! They are much stronger than the Germans.”[iv] Foreign observers like the British historian John Foster Fraser similarly proposed in 1915 that German academics were falling over themselves to keep the Jews out because the competition “between the sons of the North with their blonde hair and sluggish intellect and the sons of the Orient with their black eyes and alert minds” was so unequal.[v]

A constant refrain throughout Aly’s book is that the dimwitted Germans simply lacked the intellectual firepower to compete effectively with Jews in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He claims, for instance, that: “Untalented Christian students, non-innovative entrepreneurs, and businessmen who got their numbers mixed up” simply couldn’t compete with “intellectually superior” Jews.[vi] Elsewhere, he asserts that
relative to their Christian peers, they [Jews] overcame the initial obstacles to social betterment with ease, even though legally they became fully equal everywhere in Germany only in 1918. Conversely, Christian social climbers were in an inferior position vis-à-vis Jews, who were objectively disadvantaged but subjectively better equipped to deal with new social demands. As Gentile Germans began to call for state protection from economically and intellectually superior Jews, laws were passed and administrative procedures were found to secure the privileges of the Christians. But such protectionism only highlighted how slow and incompetent many Gentiles were. Public failure was embarrassing, and people who were fearful, who had emerged as the losers of social change, and who were plagued by feelings of inferiority became modern anti-Semites.[vii]
An analogous view to this was advanced by the early twentieth century Jewish neurologist Abraham Meyerson who posited that it was this Jewish intellectual superiority, rather than their ingroup-oriented morality and behavior, which was the primary cause of European anti-Semitism, insisting that “with the downfall of the Roman Empire the Jews and Arabs alone kept the torch of culture and science lit. In other words, the Jew was easily superior in these matters [science and culture] to his uncouth warrior-like hosts. This superiority brought about a jealousy, fear of the ability of the Jew; a fear that has never been stilled, though the culture of the Western races has reached a very high plane; a fear that yet actuates most of the hostile feelings of neighboring races.”[viii]

Paradoxically, elsewhere in his book, Aly admits that these “untalented,” “non-innovative” and “incompetent” Germans “achieved remarkable intellectual and (somewhat later) economic and technological breakthroughs in the nineteenth century.”[ix] Peter Watson, the British intellectual historian and author of the monumental book The German Genius, has pointed out that Germany in the nineteenth century was “the first modern educated country,” and the one that invented the institutionalization of scientific and technological research — something which was pivotal in shaping modern industrial civilization. Observing how the oft-repeated claims of Jewish intellectual superiority in Germany in the nineteenth century are “overdone,” he maintains that, with regard to the development of music, philosophy, poetry, and science in Germany in the first two-thirds of the nineteenth century, “Jews played a very small part” (and, one might add despite Aly’s statement above, a non-existent role in the Middle Ages when Jewish communities were completely isolated from surrounding cultures and absorbed in religious writings).

Layout 1

In addition to their alleged intellectual deficiencies, Aly proposes that the sources of the pathological envy of the Germans of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries resided in their “weakness, timidity, lack of self-confidence, self-perceived inferiority, and excessive ambition.” He offers no real evidence that these traits were typical German traits during this time, but ascribes these traits to the “innate insecurity of German national identity” which resulted from the relatively late development of the German nation compared with other European states.

It is true that, for various historical reasons, the Germans had a difficult time coalescing into a nation. Most histories of Germany begin by recounting the exploits of the Germanic peoples in Italy, France and Spain rather than just telling the story of the Germans in Germany. The geographically fragmented origins of the German people are reflected in the various names others have given them — they were “Saxons” to the Finns, “Niemcy” or “Swabians” to the Russians and Poles, “Germans” to the British, “Allemands” to the French, “Tedeschi” to the Italians, with the Germans themselves adopting the last root for their “Deutsche.”[x] Aly accurately notes that:
In 1806, Germans were less a people than a collection of peoples, cleft by the existence of numerous small states, each with its own history. Germans lived between the Curonian Lagoon, on the eastern Baltic Sea, and the Vosges Mountains in Alsace, between the Belt and Scheldt Rivers in Southern Tyrol, and a long way up the Danube River into Eastern Europe. They formed the largest cultural, linguistic, and ethnic group in Europe. Located exactly in the middle of the continent, German territory was the scene of various migrations, wars and religious conflicts.[xi]
The political unification of the German lands was delayed for many decades by the Thirty Years’ War which devastated the infrastructure and decimated the population of the states that would eventually comprise the German Empire. In addition to the harrowing experience of the Thirty Years’ War, Germany also suffered greatly a century and a half later due to the wars between revolutionary France and other European powers. Napoleon played off regional and dynastic interests against each other, and demanded massive war contributions from them — both in men and material. The new social order Napoleon instituted in many German states contributed to new divisions. Aly notes that: “For the vast majority of Germans, the French occupation was a time of executions and murders, inflation, and lasting economic deprivation. More than a few communities were still paying off debt accumulated during that period in the late nineteenth century; some wouldn’t succeed in clearing the books until the rampant inflation of 1923.[xii]

Germany 1618

An additional barrier to German unity was the sectarian divide between the Catholic south and the Protestant north. If that weren’t enough, there were also linguistic barriers: as late as the early nineteenth century it was still unclear whether the Upper Saxon dialect of today’s eastern Germany or the lower Saxon one of the central regions would serve as a basis for High German. And it wasn’t until 1934 that the interior minister Wilhelm Frick succeeded in establishing “German” as a designation of nationality on passports, and not until 1938 — when Hitler presided over the unification of Germany and Austria into the greater German Empire — that the dream of a unified German state was finally (and briefly) realized.

In contrast to the painfully slow evolution of German national unity and identity, Aly claims that “Jews in fact possessed the sort of deep, meaningful roots that patriotic Germans were forever frantically digging for.”[xiii] He approvingly quotes the Zionist writer Heinrich York-Steiner who, in accounting for the rising popularity of the National Socialists in 1932, declared that “From the era of the Hohenstaufens on down to today, Germany’s political and social position has been uncertain, unstable and erratic … . This position in world history accounts for German’s ambivalence towards foreigners. What they lack is the strength that comes from constant development, from a nationally evolving self-confidence. The German today is a helot, tomorrow a conqueror, and he acts out his feelings in displays of ethnic hyperbole.”[xiv] Endorsing this view, Aly claims that Germany’s unique history engendered weakness and self-doubt and also pent-up aggression and xenophobia.

While “Prussian militarism” was a real phenomenon, Aly’s characterization of the Germans of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as “immature, aggressive bullies” only became the stereotypical view in the Anglosphere during World War I. Prior to that, Germans were noted for their Innerlichkeit or inwardness. The influential French writer and Salon leader, Madame de Stael, portrayed the Germans during the period of the Napoleonic Wars as a nation of “poets and thinkers, a race of kindly, impractical, other-worldly dreamers without national prejudices and disinclined to war.” The English historian, Frederic William Maitland, regarding the Germans of the nineteenth century, noted that “It was usual and plausible to paint the German as an unpractical, dreamy, sentimental being, looking out with mild blue eyes into a cloud of music and metaphysics and tobacco smoke.”[xv] Americans likewise held a benign view of Germans prior to the twentieth century, with one American historian noting that “whether seen in their newly minted nation [after 1871] or in this country [i. e., German immigrants to the United States], the Germans were generally regarded as methodical and energetic people who were models of progress, while in their devotion to music, education, science, and technology they aroused the admiration of Americans.”[xvi]

Aly ignores all of the laudatory descriptions of the German character prior to World War I which contradict his preferred unflattering characterizations. He claims that, compared to the Germans, the English and the French “followed a very different trajectory” and that this explains why “anti-Semitism” was less prevalent and intense in these nations. He conveniently omits any mention of how Jews were expelled from England and France (in the latter case on numerous occasions) during the Middle Ages despite the English and French supposedly having enjoyed more secure national identities. Furthermore, a strong case can be made that, prior to World War I, the French evinced far greater hostility toward Jews than did the Germans. In France the Dreyfus affair sparked anti-Jewish riots in more than thirty towns. Nor does Aly mention that Jewish historians typically have little positive to say about English or French attitudes toward Jews.

The real reason why hostility to Jews eventually reached a greater intensity in Germany compared to England and France was likely a product of the relative size of the Jewish populations in these nations. Kevin MacDonald notes in Separation and Its Discontents that Jews only represented a tiny percentage of the population of England in the nineteenth century — only 0.01 percent. They also played a remarkably small role in the economic development of that nation — the notable exceptions being their domination of the diamond and coral trades. He notes that: “Throughout this period England remained an ethnically homogeneous society, without ethnically-based resource conflict. However, there was anti-Semitism, directed both at the “cousinhood” of wealthy Jewish families and, later in the century, Orthodox immigrants from Eastern Europe.”[xvii]

Pre-World War II England is held in the historical memory of Jews as a society convulsed with “anti-Semitism.” The Jewish historian Norman Cantor, for instance, proposed that “the thick anti-Semitism of the time, spreading slowly upwards from the Gentile lower classes, who competed with immigrant Jews, to the ruling classes, was pervasive and bitter. There were severe limitations on the entry of Jews to the better private schools, to Oxford and Cambridge colleges, and to the learned professions. The Jews were made to feel alien and unwanted.”[xviii] He also claims that the British government “was deeply concerned that Christian young men conscripted to fight in the war were not perceived as being sacrificed for the Jews. In addition to this general caution, high officials in the foreign and defense ministries were personally and openly anti-Semitic.”[xix]

Norman Cantor
Norman Cantor
As for Winston Churchill, while he “was a highly intelligent man and something of a personal philo-Semite,” in the end he did “not raise a finger for the Holocaust-threatened Jews” because “he was hypersensitive to the depth of anti-Semitism in his society and haunted by a fear that special efforts to save the Jews would raise cries of ‘it is a Jew’s war’ and ‘British Christian boys are dying to save the rotten Jews.’ He backed off completely.”[xx] Meanwhile, the Jews in Britain “that could have intervened to help Eastern European Jewry were inhibited and distracted by the wall of hate in their own ambience.”[xxi] England is putatively a land of painful historical memories for Jews like Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland who claims that the map of England is “pockmarked with the sites of medieval Jewish torment: Lincoln, Norwich, York.’[xxii]

Ignoring all this, Aly claims that Germans were, among European nationalities, uniquely hostile toward Jews and that “their particular brand of anti-Semitism” was a byproduct of their “innate insecurity of national identity.”[xxiii] They compensated for this innate insecurity through immoderate displays of national and ethnic pride. He asserts that at public celebrations on Hitler’s birthday in 1933, “Germans were delighted to hear themselves described as the ‘premier people on earth,’” and he opines that: “A nation that feels the need to boast like this lacks inner equilibrium.”[xxiv] The author apparently feels no need to judge Jews by the same standard, or to point out that the Jewish scriptures amount to one long hyperbolic (and often genocidal) assertion of Jewish superiority.

Paradoxically, Aly points out that these “innately insecure” Germans were regarded by Jews in the early nineteenth century as far more benign than the natives of various eastern European countries with supposedly more secure national identities. Aly notes that
in the nineteenth century, Jews who migrated to Germany from neighboring countries in Eastern Europe felt great relief when they crossed the border. They appreciated the legal protections, economic freedom, and educational opportunities offered first by Prussia and later by the German Empire. Anti-Jewish pogroms, which continued well into the twentieth century in Eastern and Southeastern Europe, had died out in Germany, while the absence of governmental restrictions helped make the country a magnet for Jewish migration. By 1910, Germany had twice as many Jews as England and five times as many as France.[xxv]
So what changed to prompt an upsurge in German hostility toward Jews throughout the nineteenth and into the early twentieth centuries? After Napoleon emancipated Jews from most legal restrictions in the Western German territories in 1806 and they entered mainstream German society, Germans were confronted for the first time with the social and economic effects of unfettered Semitism. In 1806, the Jews in Prussia had owned almost nothing. By 1834, 13 percent of them were part of the nascent upper middle class, while more than 50 percent were firmly middle class.[xxvi] This, not surprisingly, triggered a reaction among large sections of the native population. Aly notes that:
This reversal was motivated by the fact that Gentile Germans were compelled to face what we might call, somewhat polemically, Jewish challenges. Bit by bit over the course of the 1800s, artisans, court-appointed merchants, owners of medium-sized farms, pastors, civil servants, and other respected figures had lost influence. The remaining trade guilds devolved into selfish monopolies that put the brakes on economic development; Berlin artisans, for instance, sought to use legal trickery to preserve their traditional privileges. Despite their efforts, the old social center was gradually replaced by a new middle class of lawyers, doctors, managers, publishers, brewers, stock brokers, theater directors, and department store owners. Their ranks contained a disproportionate number of Jews.[xxvii]       
Prior to 1806, Germans and Jews had limited contact in society. This situation gradually changed throughout the nineteenth century as the urban Jewish population surged. Between 1811 and 1875, Berlin’s Jewish population increased by a factor of fourteen. It wasn’t, however, simply a question of the growing numbers and rapid Jewish economic advancement, it was also the “social strife” that accompanied the Jewish penetration and eventual domination of mainstream German society and which prompted “constant discussion of the Judenfrage.” Aly notes that, post emancipation, “Jews were regarded less as adherents of an alien, barbaric faith and more as members of a secular socioeconomic group that disproportionately profited from modern life.”[xxviii] The realization quickly dawned on average Germans that Jews were not just a religious community but an endogamous ethnic group which had adopted a highly successful group survival strategy.

This realization intensified over decades, especially following the advent and diffusion of evolutionary thought in Germany after the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859 (the German translation of which appeared in 1860). Alfred Kelly has documented how Darwinism was a huge sensation in Germany, noting how “Darwinism became a kind of popular philosophy in Germany more than any other country, even England. Darwinism caught on rapidly in the German scientific community; indeed, Germany, rather than England, was the main center for biological research in the nineteenth century. …  It also offered the richest environment for Darwinism to expand beyond the confines of science.” Darwin himself commented that “The support I receive from Germany is my chief ground for hoping that our views will ultimately prevail.”[xxix]

German origin of species
Title page of the first German edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (1860)

Kevin MacDonald has noted that in Germany in the nineteenth century there were several “detailed proposals for gentile group strategies in opposition to Judaism.”[xxx] One nineteenth-century German publication characterized Judaism as “a political, social and business alliance for the purpose of exploiting and subjugating the non-Jewish peoples.”[xxxi] After citing statistics on the percentages of Jews among employers, and among students in institutions of higher education, the German nationalist Adolf Stoecker stated that “should Israel grow further in this direction, it will completely overcome us. One should not doubt it; on this ground, race stands against race and carries on — not in the sense of hatred but in the sense of competition — a racial struggle.”[xxxii]

This line of thinking eventually attained its clearest and strongest expression in the ideology of National Socialism. In his unpublished sequel to Mein Kampf, Hitler outlined his conception of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy, noting that:
The Jews, although they are a people whose core is not entirely uniform in terms of race, are nevertheless a people with certain essential particularities that distinguish it from other peoples living on the earth. Judaism is not a religious community; rather, the religious ties between the Jews are in reality the current national constitution of the Jewish people. The Jew has never had his own territorially defined state like the Aryan states. Nonetheless, his religious community is a real state because it ensures the preservation, propagation, and future of the Jewish people. …
Just as every people possesses, as the basic tendency of all its earthly actions the obsession with preserving itself as its driving force, the same is true of the Jews. But here the struggle for survival takes various forms, corresponding to the entirely different natures of the Aryan peoples and the Jews. … The existence of the Jew himself thus becomes a parasitic existence within the life of other peoples. The ultimate goal of the Jewish struggle for survival is the enslavement of productively active peoples. To reach this goal — which, in reality, the Jews’ struggle for survival has represented throughout the ages — the Jew uses every weapon that is in accordance with the entirety of his character.[xxxiii]
MacDonald notes in Separation and Its Discontents that National Socialism was a group evolutionary strategy that in several key features mirrored Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. Germany after 1933 saw the conflict of these two opposing group strategies.[xxxiv] Aly repudiates the arguments of the German geneticist Fritz Lenz which directly mirror the moral precepts of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy directed at preserving the race. Lenz had observed that “in the long run, the only forms of life that can survive are those whose race can also be preserved,” and the ethical imperative was therefore to ask of every action or non-action: “Is it good for our race?”[xxxv] The Romanian revolutionary Nicolas Balescu had similarly argued in the mid-nineteenth century that: “For me, the question of ethnic solidarity is more important than the question of freedom. A people can use freedom only when it’s able to survive as a nation. Freedom can be easily regained, if it is lost, but not ethnic identity.”[xxxvi] According to Aly, such thinking is “based on massive feelings of inferiority and envy.”[xxxvii]

[i] Götz Aly, Why the Germans? Why the Jews?: Envy, Race Hatred, and the Prehistory of the Holocaust (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2014), 1.
[ii] Ibid., 4.
[iii] Ibid., 54.
[iv] Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward An Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (1st Books Library, 2004), 171.
[v] Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006), 57.
[vi] Aly, Why the Germans?, 223.
[vii] Ibid., 222-23.
[viii] Abraham Meyerson, “The ‘Nervousness’ of the Jew,” In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940, Ed. Mitchell Hart (Waltham MA: Brandeis University Press, 2011), 177-178.
[ix] Ibid., 221.
[x] Watson, The German Genius: Europe’s Third Renaissance, the Second Scientific Revolution and the Twentieth Century (London: Simon & Schuster, 2010), 429.
[xi] Aly, Why the Germans?, 46-7.
[xii] Ibid., 43-4.
[xiii] Ibid., 220.
[xiv] Ibid., 221.
[xv] Peter Birks & Arianna Pretto, Themes in Comparative Law: In Honour of Bernard Rudden (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 265.
[xvi] David G. Haglund, Ethnic Diasporas and the Canada-United States Security Community: From the Civil War to Today (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015), 170.
[xvii] Aly, Why the Germans?, 176.
[xviii] Ibid., 360.
[xix] Ibid.,361.
[xx] Ibid.,361-62.
[xxi] Ibid., 349.
[xxii] Jonathan Freedland (2005) Journey into the Heart of Belonging (London: Hamish Hamilton, 2005), 9.
[xxiii] Aly, Why the Germans?, 219.
[xxiv] Ibid., 7.
[xxv] Ibid., 1.
[xxvi] Ibid., 29.
[xxvii] Ibid., 65-6.
[xxviii] Ibid., 3.
[xxix] Alfred Kelly, The Descent of Darwin: The Popularization of Darwin in Germany, 1860-1914 (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1981), 5; 21-23.
[xxx] MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, 165.
[xxxi] Ibid., 171.
[xxxii] Ibid.
[xxxiii] Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel to Mein Kampf (Enigma Books, 2003), 233-34.
[xxxiv] MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, 163.
[xxxv] Aly, Why the Germans?, 213.
[xxxvi] Ibid., 57.
[xxxvii] Ibid., 206.

What Is the Alt Right? A Brief Explanation

via Occam's Razor

Last night on the Chris Hayes show, Rubio SuperPAC advisor Rick Wilson lost it and felt the need to attack the alt-right.  Almost immediately afterwards, Jonah Goldberg and many others began attacking the alt-right on Twitter.  In short, the establishment now feels threatened by the alt-right.

Interestingly, for a while, there has been a short memo about the alt-right floating about among “Conservatism Inc” warning people of the alt-right.  I’ve read parts of this memo and surprisingly its description of the alt-right is not inaccurate, just too succinct.  Here I’ll give a more detailed explanation of the alt-right.

The alt-right was first coined by Richard Spencer, as an intellectual alternative to the dry “Conservatism Inc” that then passed for right-wing thought.  Since then, the term has really taken on a life all its own.  As others have noted, the alt-right really isn’t a political movement per se but rather a zeitgeist.  The big-tent alt-right includes identitarians and archeofuturists, race realists and HBD bloggers, European New Right (ENR), shitlords, neo-reaction (NRx) and reaction (Rx), trad Christians, neo-pagans, white nationalists, PUAs, etc.  (Note, these groups are not mutually exclusive.  For example, an alt-righter might consider himself an identitarian and race realist.)

One thing commenters have correctly noted is how young the alt-right is.  While there is no objective way to determine the average age of the alt-right, I would place it in the early 20s.  (Compare this with the average age of a National Review reader, which is about 65.)   And this youth movement is different from, say, the “College Republicans” of the 1980s.  These young alt-righters did not grow up reading National Review (a good thing).  They grew up with /pol/, Reddit, Twitter and other social media, and were later introduced to sites like Radix Journal, AmRen, VDare, Occidental Observer, Heartiste, MPC,  and The Right Stuff.

How large is the alt right? Really impossible to tell, but some estimates have placed it around 4 million people (mostly in the USA and Europe) and growing rapidly.

While the alt-right is a large tent that disagrees on some issues, one issue that really unites the alt-right is immigration.  The alt-right is fed up with Third World immigration into the West and wish to see most of these immigrants / migrants / refugees / invaders repatriated back to their ancestral lands.

The alt-righters usually are not free-market ideologues.  They believe the health of the nation should supersede free-market globalism, which often leads to a deracinated cosmpolitanism.  It’s why many on the alt-right are skeptical of free trade.

Philosophically, the alt-right might be called a rejection of universalism, itself a left-wing idea and product of the Enlightenment.  Nonetheless, the alt-right does not reject all Enlightenment ideas, especially science. (And those trads who say they do are probably liars.)   The alt-right might be thought of as archeofuturist which attempts to combine ancient relativistic and manly virtues with the findings of modern science, including those in human biodiversity.

Michael Brendan Dougherty recently called the alt-right “race obsessed”.  A better phrase might be:  race realists.  Most alt-righters actually take Darwinism seriously. (If you are at a loss of what “taking Darwinism seriously” means, you might want to read this book.)  Young alt-righters are comfortable with modern science which shows that human biodiversity is a facet of life.    The fact that so many today in Conservatism Inc. want either to ignore or deny human biodiversity, shows how untethered from reality modern conservatism has become.  It is living in a politically correct fantasy land.

Someone recently emailed a list of “popular college majors” of alt-right people.  I have no idea how someone could determine this, but here’s the list: computer programming, mathematics, genetics, evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, economics, classical languages, Germanic studies (think Tolkien & Wagner), and philosophy.

The younger alt-right is quite technologically savvy and has made many hashtags go viral:  #Cuckservative, #WhiteGenocide, #MerkelMussWeg#NRORevolt, #ISaluteWhitePeople, #WhiteGirlsAreMagic, #BoycottStarWarsVII, etc.

The most successful alt-right meme to infect the general public by far is the cuckservative meme (roundup here), which I’m happy to say I played a part in.  Other memes created by the alt-right:  ((( ))), the current year, dindus, etc.

Some critics have asserted that the alt-right is anti-Christian.  This is not true.  What the alt-right is against is mainstream Christianity today where you have “Christian leaders” supporting the Third World immigration invasion of the West and telling white people that they should adopt non-whites instead of procreating and white babies.  Much of modern Western Christianity has become suicidal and the alt-right is correct to mock and criticize it.  But in terms of religion, the alt-right is quite diverse.  Some are atheists and agnostics.  Some are neo-pagans. And many subscribe to an “uncucked form of Christianity” that is not antagonistic toward Western Civilization.

Trump.  Many mainstream journalists seem obsessed with the fact that many in the alt-right support Donald Trump.  Yes, many (but not all) do.  Nonetheless, the alt-right would still exist without Trump.  And many in the alt-right are not even American and are more interested in leaders like Orbán, Le Pen or Putin.

Many journalists have labelled the alt-right anti-semitic, which is more a smear than an actual description. There is actually diversity among the alt-right on the “Jewish question” (JQ).  Some like Jared Taylor do not discuss it.  Others like Kevin MacDonald do.  There is little dispute that Jews have disproportionally been involved in starting left-wing movements of the last 150 years:  Marxism, Cultural Marxism, Freudianism, Boasian Anthropology, etc.  Also, many Jews support Israel building a wall, deporting Africans and refusing Syrians while simultaneously supporting mass immigration for the West. Most in the alt-right would probably agree that a free and open society should not have a problem discussing this.  Some younger Jews sympathetic to the alt-right I’ve talked to see more comfortable with these ideas being discussed, so there might be a generational divide on this.

Whatever happens, one thing is clear:  The alt-right does not seem to be going anywhere.  In fact, it seems to be growing very rapidly.

Why Is the Race of Harry Potter’s Hermione Being Magically Changed from White to Black?

via Return of Kings

Already on this site we’ve expressed our disappointment that franchises like Mad Max, Star Wars, Game of Thrones and so many others have bowed before the social justice crowd. Unfortunately, Harry Potter is now among them.

The latest nonsense issue drummed up by the laughable degenerates of the far-left is the casting of black actors in the latest Harry Potter adaptions. The controversy began with the recent announcement that actress Noma Dumezweni – a black actress from Swaziland, with be playing a grown-up Hermione in the upcoming stage play Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, which is meant to serve as a sequel to the books.

The one on the right

The responses have varied from unbounded enthusiasm to uneasy disbelief. If like I, you fall in the latter camp, don’t worry, it just proves you still retain an ounce of sanity.

We’ll get one thing right out of the way—many news articles, brimming with narcissistic contempt, have tried to get away with claiming that the character’s skin color is “never specified in the books.”

The internet has already called bullshit:

Hermione white face
Prisoner of Azkaban – pg 293

Hermione Granger is white. I don’t even care if J.K.Rowling (all hail) has forgotten her own words. Saying the character is black is a retcon. It’s not even like saying Dumbledore is gay, as this is left genuinely ambiguous in the books. No, this would be like saying the Dumbledore is actually a bald, overweight guy from Kentucky who sells Sherbet Lemons on the side.

But back to the point, so what exactly is the “problem” with a black Hermione? It is a surrender.

If the people wanting to create a “black Harry Potter” had a shred of integrity, dignity or creativity, here’s what they’d actually do. They wouldn’t just go and cast black actors to play a bunch of very English characters, speaking English, in a book set in England, written by a blonde white English woman. It is about as intellectually lazy as I can imagine.

Instead, if you had any decency, you’d create your own series with specifically black characters, hopefully set in a black country, with its own black culture. Trust me this isn’t hard. In fact, we’ve seen it done before. The first example that comes to my mind concerns Schindler’s List, Steven Spielberg’s historical epic about the holocaust. If you were a social justice warrior, you might be jealous of the film’s success. How dare a Jewish director cast white actors in a film set in Europe during World War Two?

You may then demand that, to be “fair,” Hollywood must go and make a black version of the film. We must cast a black man as Oskar Schindler! Have a black commandant running the concentration camp! Even a little black girl wearing the red dress! Or instead, you could be like a sane person and go make a similar but different film, with similar themes, about an event actually relevant to Africans. Hence, we get a movie like Hotel Rwanda.

The real ‘black Oskar Schindler’
This was a movie released in 2004 that tells the real story of Paul Rusesabagina – the manager of a hotel in Kigali, Rwanda who protected 1,200 Hutu and Tusti refugees from the machete wielding mobs during the 1994 genocide. I happen to have seen it, and it’s not a bad film. Certainly, many have compared it to Schindler’s List, and there can be little doubt it was inspired by it, but ultimately it tells its own unique story. This is my point.

Don’t be half-assed about it. If you’re going to make a black Harry Potter, then do it properly. Go and make your own young-boy-discovers-he-is-a-wizard fantasy universe, set in Africa. Don’t be lazy and just copy what some white English single mother from Gloucestershire came up with one day on a delayed train from Manchester to London.

J K Rowling
‘Down with whitey bruthas!’

Simply casting a Swaziland actress as Hermione Granger doesn’t make the film one iota more about Africans. It does nothing to help the promotion of black culture. If anything, it’s a surrender. You’re literally admitting—“well no black author could ever write a story this good, better just copy what that blonde white English woman did and call it a day…”

Hermione Granger

As some may point this out, yes I understand that many aspects of quintessentially “white” culture have a foreign basis. We all know Star Wars had a plot inspired by The Hidden Fortress, but George Lucas didn’t just cast Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford as Tahei and Matashichi and call it a fucking day. He added to the story, set it in space and all that shit.

What does casting a black actress actually add to the story – other then making 400 million Harry Potter fans roll their collective eyes while like fifty SJWs—most of them Guardian journalists—shit themselves with excitement?

I’d also object if someone pointed out the way many Hollywood films whitewash characters in historical movies like Troy or Gladiator. True, its not ideal, but generally I wouldn’t call that being racist or lazy. There’s just something of a shortage of ancient Roman and Greek actors in the 21st century. But I’m sure there’s plenty of modern white actors to play modern white characters.

Unfortunately, things like your race, sex, eye color, hair color, looks, voice, accent, personality—these things are all a part of you. Audiences would be surprised if someone cast me—a skinny, twenty-something Australian guy—as Mohammad Ali or Nelson Mandela. A black Hermione can only be political—and we should rightly laugh at the absurdity of it.


At this point, you’re probably expecting me to call for a boycott of the stage play when it comes out later this year. And hell, why not? Its the fastest way for us to get in the news. But honestly, I don’t care. Yes I’m disappointed that Harry Potter is now bending to a vocal minority on the far-left. We’re here again, that lone voice in the crowd saying—“Um, guys? Isn’t this kinda crazy?” I’m simply here to wonder, why does everyone else so covet the stories told by us villainous (and usually male) white people?

You never see this happening overseas. We simply don’t hear people saying, “So why aren’t there more white actors in Seven Samurai.” Rather than complain about it, instead they went and made The Magnificent SevenI’d say, let Japanese people cast Japanese actors in Japanese movies about Japanese culture. Let the Chinese do the same, plus the Arabs, Indians, Africans, and so on. Oh—and those evil white people, them too.

I’m sorry guys, but Harry Potter and his friends are most definitely White Anglo-Saxon Wizards. There’s no point pretending otherwise.

In Defense of Benevolent Colonialism

via Darkmoon

Detroit Journal cartoon, 1898
This White man lives by the best principles of his race. We took America because we wanted it. We took Australia because we wanted it. We took Africa because we wanted it. We took these lands because we knew we could use them in ways that the natives could not.

Look at Australia for example. A barren, hostile wilderness – an arid land, which had for 60,000 years been inhabited by a Neolithic people with an average IQ of 67. In less than 200 years we Europeans turned this barren wasteland into a modern society with cities the equal of Europe.


Because we could! Because we could use the land in infinitely superior ways to the way the Aboriginal had used it.

The aboriginal now lives in a better society – a more literate society – a society he could never have built. He has benefited by our hard work, our industry and our intellect.

Take South Africa. The Zulu, like the White man, was a relatively recent settler. Zulus arrived in South Africa about 100 years before the whites. When the Zulus arrived, they systematically went about killing the natives – blacks slaughtering other blacks. You might want to review the history of the Rwandan genocide to see what blacks are capable of doing to other blacks.

Let’s stop this Noble Savage nonsense right here and now!

The Tragedy of Southern Identity

via Radix

Sam Dickson's speech from Become Who We Are (October 31, 2015).

The Resurgence of White America


I’m curious if you’ve seen this essay about the “Jacksonians” by historian Walter Russell Mead.
Not since he fought with Nicholas Biddle over the future of the Bank of the United States has Andrew Jackson been this controversial or this central in American political life. Jacksonian populism, the sense of honor-driven egalitarianism and fiery nationalism that drove American politics for many years, has never been hated and reviled as often as it is today, and many American academics and intellectuals (to say nothing of Hollywood icons) are close to demanding that Jacksonian sentiment be redefined as a hate crime.
For President Barack Obama and his political allies in particular, Jacksonian America is the father of all evils. Jacksonians are who the then Senator had in mind when, in the campaign of 2008, he spoke of the “bitter clingers” holding on to their guns and their Bibles. They are the source of the foreign policy instincts he most deplores…
The New Politics: Andrew Jackson, Revenant, The National Interest, January 17, 2016
I kept thinking of your phrase, The Historic American Nation….who, blessedly, appear to be awakening from their long slumber.
Thanks for all you do.

"The Revenant:" Contemporary Media from a Pro-White Perspective

via Alternative Right

This film is by the Mexican Director Alejandro G. Iñárritu, who really should think about Anglicizing his impossible-to-pronounce name to something simpler, like Alexander Inwood, especially as he's now so well established North of the border. Despite this quibble, I thought his film was one of the best pieces of cinema I've seen in the last year.

I saw The Revenant by preview first and then on the big screen, which is the way it should be seen. I thought it had a very strong Nietzschean theme and was very beautiful in fact. Some critics have compared it to Apocalypse Now – but more a Heart-of-Darkness-on-land affair than a carry-on-up-the-river one – but certainly a valid comparison.

One of the things I liked was the movie's misanthropic view of humanity. It showed everyone being a c*nt, basically. Everyone was terrifying and cruel – both the White settlers and hunters for pelts, and the local indigenous Indians, who, when not killing white men, kill each other. But this darkness is tempered with a little Terrence-Malick-style grace, as well as rare touches of kindness and communication here and there. This balanced it all out for me, and made it a much more rounded work of contemporary cinema.

The film does have a few flaws. Leonardo DiCaprio's character – the tracker Hugh Glass, an actual Scotch-Irish trapper and frontiersman, complete with a Pawnee squaw and half-breed child – sustains some rather spectacular injuries early on in the film, which tax credibility.

There is the infamous ‘Bear Rape’ scene of internet legend and memes. This is not an actual rape, but just an attack involving a female bear, but it sort of looks like a rape, so, if you find that funny, keep thinking it. The problem, however, is that Glass is torn up so bad that I doubt medical science even today could have patched him together, never mind back then.

The "Wolf of Wall Street" gets mauled by the bear of the backwoods.
But this mauling centers on one of the film's main conceits – the Nietzschean dictum that "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger." And stronger Hugh Glass gets. Even though it seems impossible for him to survive, with the help of an Indian healer and a strict organic diet of raw fish, meat, and grass, he manages to pull through.

For the Alt Right community, especially folks like Jack Donovan, this film has plenty – and I mean plenty – of alpha male aggression. It is basically just about revenge between two tough aggressive men – grrrr!

I’ve read a few lily-livered Cultural Marxists critiques of this film. They complain that it’s "suffering porn" or that it’s too male-centred (Wow! How did that happen?) and so on. That is just horse shit. We on the Alt Right are made of tougher stuff, and will lap this up like sweet morning dew.

Tom Hardy plays a fine villain in Fitzgerald, the actual name of someone who crossed Glass, but here he also seems to be the "designated carrier of White evil," a common enough device in most big Hollywood films these days. Fitzgerald is a realist, who wants to get his pelts back to camp, make a pretty penny, and head South to join the klan in Texas, or some such thing. But, alas, a marauding bunch of pesky Injuns take the Cowboys and Indians stuff up a few levels with a particularly vicious attack on some harmless White settlers. This happens early on and totally sets the brutal mood that then persists throughout the movie. It’s cruel, super violent, and nihilistic, with both sides copping a serious hiding and no one really winning.

That’s sort of the theme of the piece, but in the end Glass has a victory of sorts. After he is injured, you see Fitzgerald offered a handsome reward to take care of him until he dies. Two young men stay behind to help – one the Indian half-breed son of Glass, the other a White lad Fitzgerald has taken under his wing – a surrogate son to Glass's real one.

Well, Fitzgerald being who he is, takes offence at the half-breed and sends him packing to Indian Valhalla, then leaves Glass to die in the wilderness. From these acts springs the cycle of revenge that is the engine of the movie.

With Eternal Return each
one of us is a pile of skulls.
There are also more than a few hints of another one of Nietzsche's famous dictums, namely that of the Eternal Return – the notion that this universe and our lives are played out again and again an infinite number of times. The title of the movie means "one that returns after death or a long absence." This Nietzschean theme is also symbolized by circle and spiral motifs throughout the film, especially by one on a water can. This is is something to keep an eye out for.

Of course, cinema itself is a perfect expression of Eternal Return: we can make any film we like, but, once it's made, it's that way forever and ever, and will be played the same way over and over again. Nietzsche felt that life was perhaps like this. He may have been correct, but if he was, he clearly will be again, and if he is, then Hugh Glass (and Leonardo DiCaprio) can expect the mama bear to keep on finding him.

Sallis on Young on Nietzsche

via Western Destiny

I’d like to comment on aspects of Julian Young’s philosophical biography of Friedrich Nietzsche.  Consistent with “fair use” scholarly criticism, a minuscule fraction of the work will be quoted here and analyzed.  This will not be a traditional book review, in which the entire work is scrutinized and put into the balance – suffice to say I think the book is mostly excellent and is recommended to those interested in such topics.  However, I will note that Young’s liberalism on many topics shines through clearly, which I found extremely distasteful (e.g., Young’s pro-feminism is pitiful and his attempts to legitimize Lou Salome’s sociopathic exploitation of beta orbiters are pathetic), although Young draws the line at attempts to have his “Fritz” portrayed as a closet homosexual.  I won’t get into the Cate plagiarism controversy.  I will say Young is much more honest about Nietzsche than was the Jew Walter Kaufmann (should we be surprised?) – indeed, after reading Young, I realized how badly I had been hoodwinked by Kaufmann’s mendacity (again – I’m shocked, shocked).

Instead, the point here is to focus on specific items of Nietzsche’s philosophy (and Young’s interpretation thereof) and put in into a perspective to those who may share my own sociopolitical inclinations. In the spirit of Nietzsche’s aphorisms, these will be very short analyses of specific snippets of text. Note that in some cases these are excerpts linked together and not direct quotes of intact paragraphs, where one sees sentences linked by “…” one should assume that considerable text has been deleted. These deletions have been carefully done so as to not change the meaning or context of the quoted material.  As always, I strongly urge the reader to obtain the original work and read it in its entirety themselves.  Footnote numbers have also been deleted from the quotes to avoid confusion.

All of the quotes should be ascribed to: Young, Julian (2011-07-27). Friedrich Nietzsche. Cambridge University Press. 

What is wrong with the mythless ‘motleyness’ of modernity?...The first symptom is loss of unity. Since the unity of a community, of a ‘people’, can only exist when individuals are gathered into the ‘maternal womb’ of a unified myth, there is, in modernity, no community, no homeland. Instead, all we have is a ‘wilderness of thought, morals, and action’, a ‘homeless wandering about’…the society driven by the frenzied quest for ‘experiences’, cheap thrills; for sex, drugs, rock and roll and ‘extreme’ sports….Without the (healthy) stress provided by an identity-defining ideal, one can only try to preserve oneself from boredom through the ever-diminishing returns of ever more exotic thrills.

That seems to me to be an accurate  description of, and criticism of, today’s rootless, deracinated, globalist multiculturalism, which replaces the organic solidarity of a folk community with the “cheap thrills” that came to the fore in the 1960s and has become amplified in today’s degeneracy.  By the way, “game” and the pursuit of sexual hedonism is part of this degeneracy, as is Randian “individualism,” “libertarianism” and any other of the “isms” that have come to define 2st century modernity.

In explaining why this is our overriding task, Nietzsche appeals, not, this time, to high-flown metaphysics, but rather to biology…So, concludes Nietzsche, mankind ought to seek out and create the ‘favourable conditions’ under which those great men can come into existence…Nietzsche here is appealing to a version of (social) Darwinism…And what he is appealing to, in particular, is the value of, in Darwinian language, the ‘random mutation’. According to evolution theory, he is observing, a species evolves into a ‘higher’ species when it produces a mutation which is better adapted to the current state of the environment. Because the mutations breed successfully whereas the remainder tend to die out before doing so, gradually the species evolves into a new species better adapted to thriving in the current environment. Because human beings and human societies belong, just like plants and animals, to the realm of biology, Nietzsche concludes, we ought to apply this same principle to society and so do everything possible to promote the appearance of ‘chance existences’, random mutations.

This interpretation by Nietzsche of course veers into the “naturalistic fallacy” but that “error” can be obviated by invoking values. There is nothing inherently wrong with choosing values that support a “social Darwinism” foundation for society. By so doing, Nietzsche also supports, at least indirectly, the viability of group selection (at least that promoted by human choice), and the competition between human cultures that forms the basis of such selection. I (and certain other sociobiological-oriented people( would argue that such has actually occurred in human history and is occurring today.  Also, anyone whose initial understanding of Nietzsche was malformed by exposure to Kaufmann’s Asiatic mendacity will find passages such as this quite refreshing.

On the Darwinian line of argument the great individual is again valuable only as a means, this time a means to the evolution of society as a whole to a ‘higher’ condition….

Once again, this is consistent with group evolution arguments. And, once again, all of Kaufmann’s Levantine flim-flam asserting that Darwinian interpretations of Nietzsche are a totally wrong misinterpretation are shown to be, at best, wrong, and at worst, intentionally mendacious.

Are we all consigned to slavery to create his ‘freedom from the necessity of earning a living’? Should all non-geniuses become coal-miners or sock-darners? Not so. Even ‘second and third rate talents’ can contribute to the task by preparing both ‘within’ and ‘without’ for the appearance of genius. Presumably the idea here is that the higher the general level of culture the more favourable are the conditions for the appearance of genius.

And today’s degenerate culture mitigates against the emergence of genius. Is that part of the plan?

…since a large gap between rich and poor causes envy and social unrest, the concentration of enormous wealth in private hands will be avoided. Businesses, in particular banks, that generate such wealth will be state-owned. This passage makes two things clear: that, at least in Wanderer, Nietzsche's ‘anti-socialism’ is in fact anti-communism, and that the social-democratic ideal of partial nationalisation of the means of production and exchange is something he actually endorsed.

That sounds a lot like national socialism and/or fascist corporatism to me. Why not call it as it is?

But everyone can, in a way that fits their expertise and station in life, contribute to the well-being of the community as a whole and in that way secure self-respect and their own kind of feeling of power: their own happiness, in other words.

Thus, to the “individualist” Nietzsche, self-expression and authenticity can be achieved by working to contribute to “the well-being of the community.” 

The positivist worldview offered a theory of the world of incredible power and efficiency in comparison with that which had preceded it. And that, surely, one can imagine Nietzsche saying, is some kind of evidence of truth. Creatures, that is to say, who are radically mistaken about the nature of the world tend to die out before reproducing. Conversely, those whose power over their environment enables them to survive and thrive are probably close to the truth… Nietzsche can never be certain that his metaphysics of will to power is true. What, then, is its intended epistemological status?...The best theory is that which ‘works’, which, in other words, gives us power over ourselves and our environment. Nietzsche's claim for the will to power – his, as he sees it, corrected and completed version of Darwinian science – is that it comprehends reality in a way that is more comprehensive and powerful than any rival theory. He would, I think, also add, as I suggested in discussing Dawn, that the fact that a theory ‘works’ well is evidence – less than completely conclusive evidence, to be sure, but still evidence – that it is true.

This is an important point. While Nietzsche denies that scientists can ever know the way reality really is, because reality is filtered through their human perceptions, nevertheless, for practical purposes, those closer to the truth will be vindicated through their ability to exert power over the environment and to survive. Hence, the power of science, and why science, properly applied, is different from metaphysics, from religion. If an asteroid or comet was hurtling toward the Earth, with the potential to wipe out all human life, religious faith and “praying to Jaysus” is not going to help. Science can detect the threat, and science has the potential to avert the threat. If two peoples are in a war to the death, and People A use thermonuclear weapons, ICBMs, nerve gas, mustard gas, and weaponized anthrax, and People B use "the power of prayer,” hopefully all sane people can predict total victory for People A.  Whether People A perceive “reality as it truly is” doesn’t matter, since they perceive it close enough to true reality to be useful for their ultimate interests.

It is, in other words, the ‘survival of the fittest’ in a competitive and, at least potentially, hostile environment. Nietzsche applies this theory to human society, which makes him a ‘social Darwinist’: he regards human societies as organisms subject to the same laws as organisms in general…a ‘universally binding…faith’ sometimes also ‘morality’ or ‘custom’. It is such a faith that constitutes the community as a community, orders the relations between individuals in such a way as to enable the social organism to function as an efficient survival machine.

Nietzsche: social Darwinism and group selection. Kaufmann: a despicable liar (or, simply, a Jew).

Without the social glue of a communal faith a society loses its capacity for collective action and becomes ripe for destruction, either through internal disintegration or through colonization by a more successful society. The principal means by which the community – or ‘herd’ – preserves conformity to communal faith consist in more or less crude forms of social ostracism. What makes this effective is the individual's basic need for community. ‘Even the strongest person…fears a cold look or a sneer on the face of those among whom he has been brought up. What is he really afraid of? Growing solitary’. Nietzsche calls this ‘the herd instinct’ in the individual. The ‘herd instinct’ has thus two aspects. On the part of the community it is the instinct to exert pressure on the individual to conform. And on the latter's part it is the instinct to give in to that pressure.

Thus, Nietzsche recognizes societal policing of free-riding, which critics of EGI seemingly are unable to understand (or, more accurately: they pretend to not understand).

In a Darwinian world the law is: mutate or die. The agents of such mutation are the non-‘herd’ types, those who resist the pressure to conform to current norms, free themselves from the chains of current morality: the ‘free spirits’. ‘The celebrated European capacity for constant transformation’ depends on such ‘malcontents’. China, on the other hand, Nietzsche claims, is a country in which large-scale discontent became extinct centuries ago, and with it the capacity for change. (Hence, presumably, its history of colonisation and exploitation by European powers, and later Japan.)

This is interesting in a couple of ways. First, we can consider that today, the dissident Right are the non-herd free spirits, who bring the new dawn, as opposed to the politically correct globalist herd animals. Second, note the anti-HBD assessment of China as a conformist, herd-like non-creative entity – an accurate description, since today’s “rise of China” is merely a default condition of them filling the niche space left by a dying, degenerate, multicultural “West.”

Thus, whereas the factory owner is mostly seen by his workers as nothing but ‘a cunning bloodsucking dog of a man’, the military leader is often treated with respect. The crucial point is that the leader should have some kind of nobility, should appear to be of a ‘higher race’ than the led. ‘The masses are basically prepared to submit to any kind of slavery provided that the superiors constantly legitimize themselves as higher, as born to command, through refined demeanour’.

Here we see another “fail” for the “movement’s” (affirmative action) “leadership.”  Nobility?  Higher race?  Laughable!

With the abruptness of a deranged, born-again Christian (as well, perhaps, as the relief of speaking after ten years of silence), Zarathustra spews out the sum of his decade of wisdom-gathering. Man, he shouts, is a ‘rope stretched between beast and superman’. The superman is the ‘meaning of the earth’. Beloved are those who take the dangerous path of dedicating themselves to making the world a ‘house for the superman’. Man needs an ‘ideal’. But since the supernatural is a delusion, we must reject all other-worldly ideals. Our ‘greatest hour’ is when we see that we fall as far short of the superman as the ape does of us.

The real meaning of the Earth: human over-coming, not worshiping a dead Jew on a stick.

This, then, is why the motleyness of European modernity threatens its ‘death’: lacking a shared ‘game plan’, it lacks the capacity for effective collective action, in particular, for action directed at its own preservation and expansion.

The diagnosis of multiculturalism and the cult of diversity killing the West.

Nietzsche takes it as self-evident that the death of European humanity would be a bad thing. Those with a more jaundiced, more guilty, view of the European tradition might think otherwise.

That’s great.  Is the latter idea Young’s view?  Why must it be mentioned?  Why must it be accepted as a viable alternative?  If the word “European” was replaced by “Jewish” or “African” would Young dare cite those who “might think otherwise?”  That I very much highly doubt.

Master morality was, then, self-focused. Slave morality, by contrast, was other-focused. It was based on hatred and fear of the slaves’ oppressors. So it was that the hate-filled word ‘evil’ replaced ‘bad’, the expression, merely, of contempt. In the ethical ‘revolt’ of the slaves the good–evil dichotomy came to replace the good–bad dichotomy of the masters. The hard qualities of the masters were given new names – ‘self-confidence’ becomes ‘arrogance’, ‘resoluteness’ becomes ‘ruthlessness’, and so on…The second disastrous consequence of the triumph of Christianity is that it ‘keeps the type “man” on a low…level’… It does this in two ways: by preserving life's ‘failures’ and by disabling its potential ‘successes’. It preserves failures on account of the supposed virtue of compassion. Compassion means that a Christianized culture preserves ‘too much of what should have perished’ Though there is no reason to think of the extermination camps, here, there is no getting away from the harshness of this view. What Nietzsche is talking about, I believe, is the eugenics – ‘breeding.’…Christian morality disables life's potential successes because it ‘throw[s] suspicion on delight in beauty, skew[s] everything self-glorifying, manly, conquering, autocratic, every instinct that belongs to the highest and best-formed type of “human”, twist[ing] them into uncertainty, crisis of conscience, self-destruction at the limit’.

Thus, we see a summary of a principled critique of Christianity – one that should be kept in mind as popes, priests, and other Christian religious figures speak out in favor of immigration, refuges, minority rights, and speak out against racialism, nationalism, and eugenics. Christianity: a creed for losers, for weaklings, for slaves.

…‘socialism’ (a term covering both social democracy and communism), and finally, and particularly vociferously, feminism. All these movements are applications of the doctrine of ‘equal rights’, which makes them ‘heirs’ to Christianity's doctrine of the equality of all souls before God.

Yes, indeed, all the leftist “isms” are derived from Christianity. Crush the infamy!

If Nietzsche treats ‘lower’ types as mere means, if he treats them as things rather than people, then he really is an immoral (and ontologically blind) thinker.

Once again, Young interjects his opinions as facts.
‘If we win’, he writes, ‘we have overcome the absurd boundaries between race, nation, and classes (Stände): there exists from now on only order of rank (Rang) between human beings.' The difference between rank and class is the difference between ability and birth. What Nietzsche seeks, as we shall see in detail in discussing The Antichrist, is a hierarchy not of blood but of natural ability and aptitude.

Obviously, we must vehemently disagree with Nietzsche here. While blood alone is not all, it is the prerequisite. The hierarchy must be confined to one people. Within that people, we have rank and hierarchy; outside the people, there should be nothing but enemies.  After all, didn’t Nietzsche also state elsewhere the importance of the organic solidarity of a culture?  How can that solidarity be maintained with elites consisting of alien peoples?  Consistent with this, Young reminds us:

As we have seen, in order to survive in a competitive, Darwinian environment, a community must have a morality which provides the ‘hardness, uniformity and simplicity’ of, as I put it, a shared ‘game plan.'.

A “shared game plan” requires shared blood, whether Nietzsche (and Young) want to admit it or not.

‘Woman as such’, the ‘eternal feminine’, lacks the capacity for ‘manly’ pursuits. Women have no concern for truth – their great talent is in the (slavish) practice of lying. They have no capacity for ‘enlightenment’ (rational objectivity) and so should be silent on religion and politics – and on the question of ‘woman as such’. Women do not even know how to cook, though they have been at it for millenni…Is this just a mass of prejudices – or, at best, ‘period errors’ – or is there a serious point mixed in with this, as it now seems, unintentionally comic rave?

Once again, Young interjects his liberal, feminist sensibilities here, smugly assuming we all consider Nietzsche’s reasonable views on the female to be “comic.”  No, Young, the idea of gender equality is what is indeed comic.

For ultimate value attaches not to the ‘tree of knowledge’ but rather to ‘the tree of life’.

If true, that is an endorsement of ultimate interests, of EGI, of Salterism. If promoting the interests of life is important, and if life is about genetic continuity (It is, insofar as we can tell), then ultimate value holds there. Would Young accept that argument?  I doubt it. Should he accept it?  Should you accept it?  Yes, most definitely.  After all, what use knowledge if not to promote the interests of life?  Then we see the next step – whose life?  Step by step we come to the racial nationalist EGI agenda.

The West is, then, in a parlous condition. In its ‘motley’ state it lacks the ‘hardness, uniformity and simplicity of form’ of a shared, as I called it, ‘game plan’ possession of which is necessary to survive and thrive in a competitive world. But the situation is not hopeless. For one thing, for all the difficulties it creates, the collapse of Christianity, since it made our culture sick, is fundamentally a cause for celebration. For another, we possess a secret ‘faith’, a vision of what should and must redeem us from the present and the past.

For the West to survive, the rotting corpse of Christianity must be swept away, and we must make way for the Overman High Culture.
…he will not support any anti-Semitic undertaking, he does not trust her any more, he hopes all the anti-Semites will leave Germany and join them, and he hopes that the Jews come to power in Europe.

This view of Nietzsche was unfortunate but nevertheless we must be honest: he was not a budding anti-Semitic Nutzi. Quite the opposite.  But that was the Nietzsche of the 1880s, a time of European world dominance. Would the Nietzsche of the 2010s be a radical racial nationalist national socialist?  Quite possibly.

What does ‘questioning’ the will to truth, turning it into an issue, mean for Nietzsche? It means elevating life, healthy life, into a higher value than truth. If self-deception, illusion, is what best promotes your psychic health that is what you should go for.

Ultimate interests over all?


At the end of the story, therefore, the unconditional will to truth becomes the criterion of psychic health.

Salterians would argue that ultimate interests and EGI have the added advantage of being true (to the extent that we humans can perceive truth).

What the passage does, it seems to me, is to endorse modernity's unlimited will to power over both nature and human nature. It is one of those things which used to be considered ‘bad’ – ‘playing God’ – but is really good. And here, it seems, Nietzsche offers us a new ‘one goal’ to override all other goals, an ultimate goal to replace the ‘one goal’ of Christianity: making ourselves masters of the universe. A glance into the notebooks of the period makes this clear. So we read, for example, that ‘what is necessary’ in place of the old morality is a ‘reversal of values’ which will produce ‘a morality that has the intention of breeding a ruling caste – the future masters of the earth’. In The Gay Science Napoleon is admired for wanting to make Europe ‘mistress of the earth’, an admiration which incorporates the desire for the domination of the globe by European culture that goes back to Human, All-Too-Human.

That sounds a lot like Sallis’ Overman High Culture and Yockey’s Western Imperium to me. Of course, the despicable Young has to throw cold water over all of it:

Perhaps the best that can be said for him is that if he were alive now he would certainly classify the unlimited will to power as one of those things that used to be considered ‘good’ but is now ‘bad’.

Here, Young predictably gets it backwards by imposing his own liberal morality on Nietzsche.  I say the opposite: if alive today, Nietzsche would be disgusted at the weakness and worthlessness of European Man, he would be shocked that Europeans are letting themselves be colonized and dispossessed by inferior cultures, he would redouble his emphasis on ‘will to power,” but now give it more of an explicitly racial-cultural “blood and soil” basis.

Re:Twilight of the Idols:

What Is the Nature of Reality? The fourth of the work's eleven parts, which runs to half a page, is titled ‘How the True World Became a Fable’. There are six stages. First the ‘true’ (the term is of course ironic), supernatural world of ‘being’, the opposite of this natural world of pain and ‘becoming’, was immediately accessible to the sage's – Plato's – mental gaze. Then it became something to one had to wait for; Christianity postponed the true world, transmuted it into the future home of the virtuous. With Kant it receded further, since it could no longer be known to exist. Yet as a consoling hope and as something we had to believe in for morality to make sense, it lingered on in a twilight state. But then came the ‘cockcrow of positivism’, the thought that something unknown could hardly be consoling. ‘Gray morning’, Nietzsche's stage direction, as it were, reads at this point, ‘first yawn of reason, cockcrow of positivism’. This lead to the coup de grâce. Positivism, when it finally arrives, abolishes the true world (denies it, one might say, ‘rights of citizenship in science’). Nietzsche applauds from the sidelines: ‘Bright day; breakfast; return of good sense; Plato blushes in shame; pandemonium of all free spirits’. And now the conclusion arises that since there is no ‘true’ world, it makes no sense to call ‘this’ one a merely ‘apparent’ world. There is only one world and ‘this’ is it. As Ecce Homo puts the conclusion: the ‘true world’ is a ‘made up world’, so that what used to be called ‘the world of appearances’ is, in truth, ‘reality’.

An excellent summary of the nature of reality. 

And Nietzsche's idea, here, looks to be something like what we would now call genetic determination: the idea that an individual ‘is’ the sum of the genes inherited from both parents, which they have inherited from their parents, and so on. Notice that this idea explains Nietzsche's continued belief in the importance of eugenics.

But Nietzsche by no means rejects the notion of freedom as such. ‘My idea of freedom’, he writes, is that it is a matter of ‘being responsible for oneself’, maintaining one's ‘distance’, ‘becoming indifferent to hardship’, ‘being prepared to sacrifice people to your cause, yourself included’. To be free means that ‘the instincts which take pleasure in war and victory have gained control over the other instincts’, the instinct to ‘happiness’, for instance, happiness, at least, as conceived by ‘grocers, Christians, cows, females, Englishmen, and other democrats’. Freedom is not a birthright. Rather one ‘becomes free’ by being a ‘warrior’ on the internal battlefield of the soul. The degree of freedom one possesses is measured by the degree of ‘resistance one has overcome, the amount of effort it costs to stay on top.'

Indeed, as I have often said: superiority is not anyone’s birthright; it needs to be earned. Likewise, freedom. Thus, this view differs from mainstream “movement” “thought” in which all positive human traits are embodied by certain ethnies – Bill Clinton and Angela Merkel as superhuman demigods.  Such a laughable image is directly derived from “movement” values.

As I emphasised earlier, a great deal of Nietzsche's philosophy has been a preparation for this validation of Dionysian feeling, for validation of the idea that one's ‘true’ life is universal, that individual life is ‘untrue’: the persistent theme of the individual as the summation of the causal history of the universe to date, the individual as nothing substantial but rather a temporary conglomeration of forces that will soon reconfigure itself, a momentary ‘wave in the necessary wave-play of becoming’.

But is this universalism the same as that preached by the Left?  It cannot be so:

One values one's enemies, Nietzsche continues, because one only discovers one's identity when faced with opposition. This is as true of individuals as of political parties.

Having enemies is a bit inconsistent with the sort of universalism promoted by the Left.  If opposition is so important to Identity, then Nietzsche’s universalism is not that of globalist multiculturalism, but instead more akin to William Pierce’s cosmotheism.

So what, then, does Nietzsche have to say about such ‘healthy monsters’? Do they not represent a counter-example to his claim that no healthy person knowingly does evil, that a well-formed person, a ‘happy’ one, never knowingly performs harmful actions? I think not. For Borgia, Napoleon, the Vikings, though healthy and happy, are not, in Nietzsche's sense, ‘well-formed’.

That is an effective answer to retarded Christian criticism that Nietzsche would support serial killers, that Ted Bundy was a Nietzschean superman. What should one do with such stupidity?

It is no mere coincidence that, with the arrival of German power, German spirit, German culture, has disappeared. For, as we know, there is an ‘either–or’ choice to be made. If – either as an individual or a nation – one expends all one's energy on ‘economics, world commerce…power, and power politics’, one will have none left for culture.

This seems to be a Spenglerian argument and one that I do not necessarily agree with.

Notice the rationale, here, for authoritarian conservatism – as his reviewers thought, a kind of ‘Junker philosophy,' for all Nietzsche's loathing of Bismarck. Without it, the capacity for resolute collective action disappears, so that the community degenerates and eventually disappears.

Hello, multiculturalism!

Whatever morality the new society possesses, it will have differential rights and duties for different kinds of people. Though hierarchical, it will be the opposite of homogeneous.

This puts the mature Nietzsche firmly on the political Right.  Although the part on "the opposite of homogeneous" shouldn't imply racial diversity.

Looked at psychologically the Jews are the people with the toughest life force; when transplanted into impossible conditions they took sides with all the instincts of décadence…out of the most profoundly shrewd sense of self-preservation – not because they were dominated by these instincts, but because they sensed that these instincts had a power that could be used to prevail against ‘the world’.

Interesting how the anti-anti-Semite Nietzsche, through his pursuit of (subjective?) truth, found his way to the same criticisms of Jews thoughtful and honest people make today.

The real Jesus was no metaphysician, had no supernatural beliefs whatsoever. For him, ‘the kingdom of heaven’ is a ‘state of the heart’. It lies neither ‘above the earth’ nor ‘after death’ but is achieved here and now in the practice of universal love. Jesus taught by parable and by example. His death was not an expiation of human sins but rather the ultimate demonstration of his doctrine of nonresistance. He was, in short, a kind of Buddhist, Buddhism being also a non-metaphysical life-practice engendered by hypersensitivity to pain. Jesus represented a ‘Buddhistic peace movement.' This true, original Christianity represents a ‘life that is still possible today, for certain people it is even a necessity’. Possible and in the 1960s, surely, actual.

The deepest essence of Christianity: a 1960s-style, hippie-like renunciation of force, of will, of power – the sissification of humanity.  Guess which race has swallowed that poison?

Young summarizes Nietzsche’s criticism of Christianity as outlined in The Antichrist; there is no need to rehash all of that once again.  However, this is interesting:
Sixth, modern Christian theologians lie through their teeth. They know ‘there is no “God” anymore’, that the ‘God-hypothesis’ is incompatible with all the other furniture of the modern, educated mind. Everyone knows that there is no ‘last judgment’, no ‘sin’, and no ‘redeemer’, yet everything goes on as before. It is notable that the ‘Law against Christianity’ that concludes The Antichrist reserves the harshest punishments for liberal Christians, on the grounds that ‘the criminality of being Christian increases with one's proximity to science’.

I believe that the higher one goes up any religious hierarchy (at least in the West), the less degree of true belief in the metaphysics there is.  Thus, the pious Christian washerwoman truly believes Jesus was the Son of God, believes it all in every last detail, while the Popes and Bishops and Cardinals know better – it is all a “happy fiction” to impose Christian morality on the masses.

‘The Antichrist’ delivers his judgment that Christianity is the worst disaster ever to have befallen the human race. In promulgating his concluding ‘Laws against Christianity’ he condemns it to having all its priests either expelled or imprisoned, along with all preachers of chastity. All its churches are to be razed to the ground with farms for poisonous snakes erected on their sites (‘holocaust’ memorials, as it were).

Excellent, excellent: exactly what we need.  Root out the Christian disaster, destroy it, and salt the earth under it so the poisonous brew of self-destruction can never rise again.

…the superman ‘is a superman specifically when compared to the good ’ – he stands ‘super’, above, their morality. Nietzsche adds, recalling the Genealogy's point that most free spirits will be ‘martyred’ by the forces of social conservatism, that ‘the good and just would call [Zarathustra's]…superman a devil.’

The racial nationalist as a “White devil evil supremacist” – would Young agree with that?  Young of course is very choosy as to which of Nietzsche’s pronouncements in his (insane) last letters were sane or not; thus:

Entirely sane, too, is the idea that war can only finally be overcome through the abolition of national and dynastic egoisms, an abolition that requires European unification and, in the end, world government. These ideas, Nietzsche's cosmopolitanism and his understanding that only the abandonment of armed nationalism can produce genuine peace, are paragons of sanity…

Young agrees with those sentiments, so they are – of course! – “paragons of sanity.”  Is this fellow Young really a serious academic?

…it follows that morals are just, as it were, an instruction manual for the ‘preservation and growth’ of either of an individual or a community.

Salterian morals as the basis for the (re)growth of the European community.

In a nutshell, the lesson Jünger took from Nietzsche was: If you cannot mould the world to fit your morality you must mould your morality to fit the world.

The Left tries to alter reality to conform to ideology; the Right tries to conform ideology to conform to reality.  Of course, Young waves away The Will to Power as just a misuse of Nietzsche’s notes by his sister.  Maybe it was, but there nonetheless are underlying themes there consistent with his overall mature philosophy – which Young actually is later forced to admit.  Nietzsche was not a Nazi, but a very embryonic form of Nazi?  Perhaps. Certainly a Nietzsche around today, observing the nightmarish hell of multiculturalism, would likely have shifted much farther to the right. Of course, liberals would have asserted that the world wars and the “holocaust” would have shifted “Fritz” to the left, but why discuss the past rather than today’s present? 

In Young’s favor, he does critique Nietzsche favoring a “will to power” over a “will to life,” and he also critiques Nietzsche’s later misunderstanding of Darwinism (Yockey made similar mistakes):
Darwin's theory is not a theory of cultural evolution, and in any case he claims not that species become more ‘perfect’ but only that they become more adaptive.

Another example of Young the political/social activist being unable to separate his leftist morality from an academic work is the following:

Nietzsche's heart, then, is in the right place. Violence, brutality, and barbarism ought to be expelled from human life.

Question for Young: is the ongoing biological and cultural genocide and destruction of Europeans a manifestation of “violence, brutality, and barbarism?”  If you say no, what justification can you have?

And here is an amusing aside:

Almost from the beginning, the Försters’ Paraguayan venture found itself in deep trouble. Based on Aryan ideology rather than skill and planning, it soon found itself short of water and, with no roads or railways, unable to transport the timber that was to have been its economic foundation to any market.

Der Movement in a nutshell!  Affirmative action in action!

And here we see Young the plagiarist further discredit himself as a serious academic:

(In the 1930s she welcomed many of the Nazi bigwigs, including Hitler himself, to the house (see Plate 32) – their stench somehow remains to this day. There is no trace of Nietzsche.)

Can such things be possible?  Is this what Western “scholarship” has fallen to?  And then:

Though Nietzsche's philosophy was likely produced by a manic-depressive (as, probably, were the works of Plato, Newton, Mozart, Hölderlin, Coleridge, Schumann, Byron, Van Gogh, Geog Cantor, Winston Churchill, Silvia Plath, John Lennon, Leonard Cohen and many other great human beings), there is nothing ‘pathological’ about it – apart from the views on women.

Note the last phrase.  Young, you are absolutely despicable. Have you no shame?  I guess Cate would say: no.
Young's interpretation that Nietzsche's mental breakdown was completely psychological is not the last word on the subject.  It may be true - however, Young is very selective of the physiological mechanisms he refutes - essentially restricting it to syphilis and a brain tumor. Looking at the biomedical literature, one can see alternative neurological diagnoses.  We cannot know which is "true" (Nietzsche I suspect would approve), but, nevertheless, one should show a bit of reserve instead of making dogmatic statements on the matter.