Feb 5, 2016

Durocher, Ethnonationalism, Pan-Europeanism, and the Defective Movement

via EGI Notes

Editor's Note: Read Guillaume Durocher's "A Note on Ethnonationalism & Pan-Europeanism" first.

So, he is against a “super-state” and for “ethnonationalism,” but still asserts that:
That said, I believe the primacy of European civilizational and genetic interests must be culturally hegemonic across the European World, that a Greater European Commonwealth (perhaps akin to the Arab League) should logically include all the countries of Europe and the European diaspora, and Western/Central European nations should be embedded in some kind of polity, for reasons of interdependence, solidarity, and scale (e.g. a continental-scale market, great cultural, aerospace, and military-industrial projects).
Which is not much different than what many anti-ethnonationalists are proposing anyway. 

I like to poke fun at Durocher, but it is richly deserved. Who else can bloviate such a self-contradictory spewing of unnecessary hot air?

But there are things to criticize, besides that some of us would prefer a larger-scale and more integrated polity, however one that would still retain some sovereignty for those nations and peoples that pull their own weight in the enterprise.

For example, the conflation of “pan-Europeanism” with some sort of Imperium, Empire, Super-State. Well, it could mean that, or it could mean what Durocher proposes at the end of his spiel, or it could simply mean completely independent White states that get along well with each other with minimal conflict.

I would define pan-Europeanism as:
Perhaps pan-Europeanism is best viewed as a flexible meme and not as a rigid set of specific polices; it generally promotes the idea of mutual respect among the varied European peoples, and therefore attempts to search for solutions that will allow for the biological and cultural preservation of all Europeans worldwide.
Pan-Europeanism asserts that all persons of European descent should have a “seat at the table” when decisions are made about the fate of the West and its peoples. Pan-Europeanism, properly considered, can be consistent and compatible with concerns about narrower ingroups: Nordicism, pan-Slavism, pan-Germanism, or whatever ethnic or subracial nationalism one wishes to consider.
What pan-Europeanism introduces to these other ideologies is an additional concern for the broader European family.
In other words, let us promote, defend, and extend the interests of ALL peoples of European descent worldwide, rather than just a subset of these. That’s it. Exactly how to promote, defend and extend those interests can be a matter of discussion and debate; what pan-Europeanism absolutely asserts is that those interests are important – ALL of them. 

Therefore, there is no inherent incompatibility between an enlightened ethnonationalism and pan-Europeanism, despite what “movement” idiots may assert. 

One must at this point question - why is the “movement” so stupid and defective? 

I propose four reasons which certainly do not constitute a final and/or exhaustive list: 

1. Dissident activities tend to attract marginal personalities.

2. These marginal personalities create defective environments that repel quality people.

3. The System’s social pricing reinforces the alienation of quality people from dissident activities.

4. The “movement’s” affirmative action policy elevates mediocrities to leadership positions.

Thus, we need to reject defectives, overcome social pricing, and get rid of the affirmative action policy.

Rape Jihad: Dark Days for Europe, Part 2

via The Occidental Observer

Part 1

“There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.”  – Retired General Wesley Clark 


Here are a few disquieting facts and figures that tell their own tale.

Going on the available 2009 figures—the figures are far higher now in 2016—the total number of foreign citizens living in Europe is roughly 32 millions. More than half of these (16.8 million) live in three European countries: Germany, Spain and the UK. Germany comes out top of the list with 7.2 million, yet the out-of-touch Angela Merkel is happy to take in more, seemingly impervious to logic and facts. The horrific sexual assaults of over 600 German women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve has left Merkel seemingly unmoved. Spain is second in Europe’s Top of the Pops for foreign citizens flooding in, with 5.6 million immigrants, and the UK comes in third with just over 4 million. (See here)


As for the UK, London, the nation’s bustling capital city of 8.6 million people, contains only 44.9 percent White Britons. Another 14.9 percent here are classified as ‘Other Whites’, with large numbers from Poland, Hungary, Rumania and elsewhere. 44 per cent of Londoners are now Black or of some other non-White ethnic origin. Almost every face you see in Oxford Street, London, is non-White. Occasionally a white face will pop into view, a face generally looking flustered and alarmed. In 15 years’ time, by 2031, the number of foreigners is set to outnumber the native Brits in London.

I am not exaggerating, but the last time I was in Oxford Street with my sister, we must have had our bottoms pinched at least half a dozen times by frisky young men from foreign lands. A bruising experience for both of us.  Black taxis, filled with outlanders with interesting complexions, inched past us like bloated slugs on wheels, disgorging their passengers onto the pavements at regular intervals. Among the torpid taxis, to our amazement, we saw a rickshaw carrying an Arab family to their destination, probably to the plush magnificence of the Ritz Hotel or Claridges’. I felt like I’d fallen off the moon and landed in the seventh circle of Dante’s hell.

Am I making this up?  If I am, so are all the newspapers I read, for they tell pretty much the same story. Apparently, you have to be a really rich foreigner to afford a rickshaw ride in London these days. The going rip-off rate is £206 ($292) for a three-minute ride.

How are the Brits coping with the Muslims in their midst? Not very well. Especially in the Midlands in places like Rotherham and Rochdale where Pakistani sex gangs have been grooming White underage girls to multi-partner sex. Roughly 1,400 white teenage girls have been sexually abused, prostituted and gang raped over a 10-year period in this densely populated area full of Muslims. The local authorities have done virtually nothing about it.

I’ll say that for these dashing Lotharios from the Far East. They can’t have enough of our White girls. In a way, it’s a pity that English girls are among the loveliest in Europe—and the easiest to bed. I doubt if that’s the main reason so many foreign migrants flock to Britain, though I’ve no doubt it’s one of the perks. Indeed, a recent article in the Daily Mail quotes one young Afghan immigrant commenting favorably on the “sexual opportunities” available in proud Britannia for foreign migrants like himself:  “As he put it, in his village, if you slept with more than one person in your life, ‘they shot you in the back’. In Britain, however, sexual opportunities were immense.”

My own recent visit to London took me into a world I barely recognized, a city I had lived in for many years during my late teens and early twenties but had religiously avoided as much as possible ever since. A recent book with the rousing title This is London: Life and Death in the World City, by Ben Judah, who is clearly Jewish, was to reinforce my own impression that the city of my youth had indeed morphed into a new City of Dreadful Night, ten times more nightmarish than the city depicted in the famous Victorian poem by James Thomson.

I was to witness with my own shocked eyes that the old white-skinned city of Shakespeare and Dickens, bursting with barrow boys and  cheeky cockneys and sellers of roasted chestnuts and steak-and-kidney pies, had seemingly altered overnight and become a foreign metropolis filled with scary men in turbans and mysterious women in hijabs, all elbowing you out of the way as they made a bee-line for the great department stores or shot through the doors of curry houses and kebab shops in search of refreshment. The English upper classes, the Bertie Woosters and their impeccable Jeevesian manservants, were no more to be seen in elite Mayfair. The Russian oligarchs and the Chinese nobility had moved in and taken over.

Criminal gangs now decide who comes to Britain and settles here. The government is a joke. It has shelved all its responsibilities for looking after its own people but does its best all the same to go through the motions of democracy and pretend it loves the people it rules. As a recent report in a mainstream newspaper points out bleakly: “When it is so easy for migrants to get here, it is just as simple for the world’s nastiest criminals to relocate to the UK, too.”

Take a look and you will see . . . the City of Dreadful Night shimmers into view, a neon nightmare of sleaze, violence, and ruthless exploitation. This is a city, we are told, “hidden from official statistics, a whole illegal city of several hundred thousand people, nearly half of them thought to have arrived after 2001.” The influx of foreigners has pushed down wages steeply, so much so that skilled workers in the building trade who used to get £15 an hour ($21) now have to work for £7 an hour ($10), bringing them onto the breadline and making it impossible for them to rent decent accommodation or raise a family. The situation for the hundreds of thousands of exploited illegals in London is infinitely worse. In comparison, slaves in Ancient Rome or servants in the British raj enjoyed a higher standard of living and were far happier.

Here is the situation as seen through the eyes of contemporary social historian Ben Judah, filtered through the prose of Daily Mail columnist Harriet Sargeant:
Somalian gangs terrorise estates in South London and Turkish gangs control North London. Kurds and Albanians launder their money through the car washes in Tottenham and Kilburn. Vietnamese gangs grow and distribute two-thirds of the strong cannabis on the capital’s streets. 
The sex industry is another area [that] has had a malign effect. 96 per cent of London’s prostitutes are now migrants. Typically, they [the Albanian gangs] lure girls from Moldova with promises of modelling jobs, but then rape and traffic them.
Finally, migration has even changed the nationality of London’s vagrants. There are now around 5,000 — mostly Polish and Romanians — living rough on London’s streets. In North London, they unload trucks for Turkish shopkeepers in exchange for nothing more than their drink of choice, White Ace cider.  Others have been found roasting rats for food in the back alleys of Tottenham and Haringey.
In this new London, increasingly there is one nationality significant for its absence — white, British-born.
A man from Grenada whom Ben Judah interviewed told him he had come to England at the age of 12 with high hopes. His family had dreamed of a better life but suddenly found themselves in a “war zone”. The only way the boy could survive was to become a cocaine dealer. “Within six months of being here,” he reports ruefully, “I lost 75 per cent of my morals.”

He was one of the lucky ones. He might well have lost the other 25 per cent of his morals, too, if he’d found himself in a back alley—roasting rats for food.

What are the politicians doing to cope with this never-ending influx of foreigners from the Third World? Precisely nothing. The best of them are simply twiddling their thumbs and making the right noises. Oh gosh, isn’t it time we did something? The worst of them, either on the payroll of the hidden Puppet Masters or infected with a pathological altruism that knows no bounds, are doing the opposite: advocating an open-door policy for more immigrants—like mentally deranged doctors, confronted with the bubonic plague, crying out like lunatics: “Let’s have more rats!

refugees welcome2
Between 15,000 and 20,000 Belgians join a solidarity march in support of the invasion of their own country by the inhabitants of the Third World. Here the demonstrators are seen, on a sunny afternoon in Brussels, calling out “Refugees Welcome!” and demanding an end to “racism and xenophobia.” This is happening all over Europe. Ironically—and this is the crowning touch of Alice-in-Wonderland absurdity—White women have even been sexually molested at a “Refugees Welcome” party

This morning I read about a frail 72-year-old Austrian lady who was raped by an Afghan immigrant while taking her dog for a walk by the river. She stays home all the time now, traumatized, trusting no one. Meanwhile, her Afghan rapist emerges as the hero of this little horror story. We learn that the Austrian judges found “mitigating circumstances” for the rapist, including the fact that he was only 17 years old and this was the first time he’d ever raped a septuagenerian pensioner.

Deport him? Heaven forbid!  Can’t have that, can we? It would violate his human rights. (See here)

Apropos of the 72-year-old Austrian pensioner, it’s a good thing she doesn’t live in Denmark with access to pepper spray. Because if she’d tried to fight off her Afghan rapist with pepper spray in Denmark, she would have landed herself in big trouble. She would have been hauled before the courts and given a stiff fine, or even a prison sentence, for subjecting her rapist to “disproportionate violence”.

I spoke earlier about the booming sale of pepper sprays in Germany as defensive weapons that women could use against their would-be rapists, Muslim or otherwise. It seems I spoke too soon. In Denmark, I was to learn to my surprise this morning, pepper sprays have been banned. Women who use them can be prosecuted for harming their attackers. A Danish teenager in the coastal town of S√łnderborg was recently knocked to the ground by her assailant who then proceeded to undress her in public. This actually took place in the town centerwith lots of people milling round. That’s pretty scary if you come to think of it. When rape becomes a spectator sport, we’ve reached the end of the line.

The 17-year-old girl managed to scare off her attacker with pepper spray. She has now been told she will be prosecutedfor trying to defend herself with a dangerous chemical.

Lunacy, it seems, has no bounds.

What’s happened to all these people? Why can’t they wake up? Even lemmings don’t behave like this.


The future for Europe looks bleak. It has changed beyond all recognition in the last few years. What it will be like in twenty years’ time is best left to the imagination of a horror fiction writer.

At the pulsating epicenter of Europe, German Chancellor Angela Merkel takes on the role of Pied Piper of Hamelin, leading her people and the rest of Europe to perdition. The Pope and his cardinals, likewise, well cushioned at the Vatican from the harsh realities of existence, recommend taking in even more “refugees”, equally indifferent to the impending demise of Europe and the destruction of its indigenous people.

At the same time in Sweden, rape capital of the West, the bovine Swedish government has come up with the bright idea of offering “sniper training” to Muslim migrants, euphemistically billing it as “target practice.” I’ll leave you to figure out who the targets are most likely to be.

Only recently a young Swedish aid worker, Alexandra Mezher, 22, was knifed to death at a child refugee center in Gothenberg by a fully grown Somalian asylum seeker pretending to be a helpless child orphan. Many of the Muslim “child refugees” in Sweden  are in fact adults sporting bushy beards. (See also here). In Stockholm, in 2015, a group of alleged “child refugees” from North Africa brutally gang raped a Swedish girl for several hours. Doubt the story if you wish, but reflect: there are too many stories like this for all of them to be untrue. No smoke without fire.

Even as I write, there is talk of the UK letting in a contingent of 3000 refugee “children”How many of these will have beards is anyone’s guess.

Talking of beards, listen to this. Quick pan once again to perfidious Albion, country of mist and melancholy—and now, alas, of mad hatters. Step forward the Bishop of London, the Right Reverend Richard Chartres, number three in the hierarchy of the Church of England. He tells us he has just discovered a brilliant way to win the hearts and minds of our Muslim brothers. “Recover the hirsute tradition of earlier ages.” the good Bishop solemnly advises his clergy. “Reach out to Muslims by growing a beard.”

This episcopal advice to clergymen is being interpreted by the intellectually challenged as advice to all men in general: grow beards if you want Muslims to treat you with respect.

The world gets crazier by the minute.

There’s an old proverb that goes: “Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.” If you prefer it in Latin, Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat.


Emerging from the green slime, here is Bill Maher, Jewish TV host, comedian and political commentator, looking into his crystal ball and having a nice gloat at the imminent demise of the White race:
Some time in the distant future, brown people are probably going to—and I say this without judgment—breed their way to power in both Europe and America. Arab populations are growing in countries like France and Holland, and I think we all see where this Mexican thing is going in America.
That’s right, because they fuck morethe darker skinned people are going to rule the world!  And white people, for their own self-preservation, should get a start on being nice to them now!  Nice!”
There’s no doubt about it. White genocide in the European homelands is now underway. It is taking place right now, even as you read these lines. And this has received the full support of the organized Jewish community in Europe and the US. (See also here). But we have also quoted a few individual Jews here already: Barbara Spectre, General Wesley Clark, and Bill Maher, and doubtle anti-White theorist Noel Ignatiev is on board with this too. Let Israeli writer Yigal Ben-Nun have the last word:
“Arab migration has been the best thing that’s happened to Europe in the past 50 years. Arabs in Europe are a fact of life. It’s time we started to accept that there’s no way to block the migration of Chinese, Pakistanis or Arabs to Europe. It’s true, Europe won’t be what it once was, but that’s a good thing. The more migrants from Africa and Asia who arrive, the better off Europe will be. Sooner or later, their children and grandchildren will marry into veteran European families and change the demographics of their countries. Europe will be different.” 


The rape jihad we see suppurating in Europe like a black pus is symptomatic of a killer disease. The evil end results of multiculturalism and mass immigration can be highlighted and summed up in two words: WHITE GENOCIDE. White genocide is indeed the fate that awaits Europe, and then America and the other homelands of the European people, unless this deadly disease is brought swiftly under control.

I will round off this essay by posting a short video that says more in five minutes than I have been able to say in 5000 words. Please don’t miss it. It is in French, with English subtitles. Don’t let that deter you if English is your only language. It’s not necessary to know French to be moved to tears by the eloquence of this paean of praise to Europe and the achievements of our ancestors.

This poignantly sad video, though triumphal and defiantly optimistic in its tone, tells you what is at stake if we lose Europe—our precious Mother Europe, source of our lifeblood and all the values we hold dear.

Blink 1488

via Age of Treason

Listen Now

Blink 1488 – Put On Your Cloak And Burka [Full Album]
Published on Jan 23, 2016
LYRICS: http://pastebin.com/raw/cexW1Yif
Donate via Paypal:
  • Track listing:
  • 1. Stay Together For The Future Generations (0:00)
  • 2. Saddam’s Song (4:01)
  • 3. All The Rapefugees (8:11)
  • 4. The Jew (10:59)
  • 5. Zionists Exist (14:55)
  • 6. Revealing This (18:09)
  • 7. I Guess This Is Getting Cucked (21:03)
  • 8. Fascists (23:54)
This video is for archival purposes only and is meant for fans of this kind of entertainment. All music rights are held by Blink 182. Parodies are protected under the Fair Use Act.
As a fan of this kind of entertainment I’ve transcoded the album to mp3 for archival purposes to my phone. Enjoy.

The Empire vs. Identity

via Radix

Keith Preston's speech at Become Who We Are (October 31, 2015).


via BUGS

Real science is based on control of variables and repeatability.

A laboratory is the ideal setting for such an endeavor, because variables can be controlled and experiments can be repeated.

Obviously history isn’t a laboratory and neither are cultures. Actually the opposite: they are so complex and vast in scale that an observer cannot isolate and control variables. (Much less a repetition of history or a culture with one variable being different at the behest of the observer!)

Another way to appreciate the difference is this.

A real scientist can make accurate predictions based on understanding a subject.

But no “Sovietologist” predicted the fall of the Soviet Union, and no “Diversity” consultant predicts the collapse of the “Diversity”/White Genocide system.


Yet despite all this obvious background, Mommy Professor still insists that when she preaches on history and culture that she is a Social “Scientist”.

No surprise there.

The priesthood of EVERY pseudoscience wants itself to appear scientific. That way their silliness may appear serious.

Whether an Early Victorian Thinker, Karl Marx’s “Scientific” Materialism, or L. Ron Hubbard’s Church of “Scientology”, or Mommy Professor’s Social “Science”.

It’s all the same:


Caught in the Act

via West Hunter

The fossil record is sparse. Let me try to explain that. We have at most a few hundred Neanderthal skeletons, most in pretty poor shape. How many Neanderthals ever lived? I think their population varied in size quite a bit – lowest during glacial maxima, probably highest in interglacials. Their degree of genetic diversity suggests an effective population size of ~1000, but that would be dominated by the low points (harmonic average). So let’s say 50,000 on average, over their whole range (Europe, central Asia, the Levant, perhaps more). Say they were around for 300,000 years, with a generation time of 30 years – 10,000 generations, for a total of five hundred million Neanderthals over all time. So one in a million Neanderthals ends up in a museum: one every 20 generations. Low time resolution!

So if anatomically modern humans rapidly wiped out Neanderthals, we probably couldn’t tell. In much the same way, you don’t expect to find the remains of many dinosaurs killed by the Cretaceous meteor impact (at most one millionth of one generation, right?), or of Columbian mammoths killed by a wave of Amerindian hunters. Sometimes invaders leave a bigger footprint: a bunch of cities burning down with no rebuilding tells you something. But even when you know that population A completely replaced population B, it can be hard to prove that just how it happened. After all, population A could have all committed suicide just before B showed up. Stranger things have happened – but not often.

Bilingual Bad Manners

via Counter-Currents

While discussing this VDare article about Fox News’s recent attempt to sell its public on bilingual education, James O’Meara pointed out that conservatives used to complain when Lloyd Bentsen spoke Spanish on the campaign trail. But what got them antsy wasn’t their knuckle-dragging hate for Hispanics; it was that he was being condescending, “like the old Gringo rulers, who spoke Spanish to their peons but didn’t expect them to be smart enough to learn English.”

A good point; it’s rather rude to imply that Hispanics alone are too stupid to learn English, as every other non-British immigrant to the United States had to do. Then again, since I’m writing in a publication on the Right, that’s going to sound like concern trolling, innit? Fine, then: Let’s talk about how fuckin’ rude it is for Spanish speakers to not bother to learn English.

It’s obviously obnoxious to barge into another civilization and demand that they treat you specially; even Leftists agree that it’s bad when White people do it, and what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. But more insidiously (and snidely), accommodating monolingual Spanish speakers robs Americans of time—which, ironically, robs us of opportunities to learn languages that aren’t Spanish or English, should we be so inclined.

Language learning is time-consuming—this wouldn’t be an issue, after all, if it were quick and easy—and there are only so many free hours in a lifetime, particularly for working people. (You know, like the ones who are being milked for their new neighbors’ Section Eight housing.) For the most part, hours and effort put toward language learning are well-expended; there’s no question in my mind that a multilingual life is a rich one. But it’s much richer if one gets to pick the foreign language into which one wants to pour all those precious hours. A forced march doesn’t pique the curiosity.

Unfortunately, for English-speaking young Americans, language number two is increasingly being prescribed in advance. “Bilingual” never means, say, English-Russian; it is code for “you must learn Spanish.” If you don’t want to, you’re a xenophobe—never mind the fact that Latin America is our boring old next-door neighbor, Spanish and English are tiresomely close cousins, and maybe some of us are more interested in cultures that aren’t right over the damn river. (Canada hardly fascinates me either.) And heaven help you if you’re thrilled by the idea of a dead language; that’s not practical.

But how practical is Spanish? How is learning it from a textbook going to do non-Hispanic students any good in the job market, where they’ll have to compete with people who get immersion in Spanish at home and in English at school, and who have the ethnic credentials to boot? Why should kids be hamstrung from striking out into linguistic fields where they might get a fair fight?

Speaking of immersion programs, I refuse to believe that there are functional bipeds who cannot learn at least the rudiments of a second language once they’re living in another country. After years of merely glancing at increasing amounts of bilingual signage in Chicago, for example, I found I no longer needed the English version myself—even before I had to deliberately learn more Spanish for my job. Do people not bother to notice their surroundings unless it’s a matter of life and death? Or is going for a walk beyond welfare moms’ humble means?

Under some circumstances, the Left can manage to grasp the boorishness of such behavior: they seem quite down with the stereotype of the ugly American, for example, who goes on vacation and expects everyone everywhere to know English. And I agree; before I go to a non-English-speaking country, I put a great deal of effort into learning enough to avoid making a pain in the butt of myself. (Another side effect of “bilingual” equaling “Spanish” is that it limits everyone else’s ability to travel politely.) I’m not asking everyone to be able to do this. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect individuals to be considerate enough to learn to communicate with civilization upon which they decide to inflict themselves.

So if we can agree that it’s rude not to learn the language when you’re interrupting your 70-hour American work week for six days of frantic sightseeing—then how is it not considered ruder still to dump your entire existence plus your kids on a foreign civilization, demand welfare, and ask that they rearrange their linguistic setup to kowtow to your convenience?

Not to mention your sense of pride. We often hear that Hispanics want to keep their linguistic patrimony for the sake of their feels. When we’re discussing how many Latin American immigrants we should welcome in, the Left never tires of repeating that we’re a nation of immigrants. But why is it that when it comes to discussing bilingual education, they suddenly forget about everyone else’s immigrant past? There are millions of Japanese-, Italian- and German-Americans, for example, who might like to talk to Grandma in the mother tongue before she passes on and that bit of history is lost; how many high schools today teach any of those languages? It’s like we’re still being punished for World War II.

And by the way: please stop calling all white people who are able to speak English “Anglos”—as though Continental European-Americans deserved further punishment and insults after mastering the godforsaken language of the godforsaken English. Do you like it when some idiot assumes you’re all Mexicans, or all Cubans? Especially when half of you hate Mexicans and/or Cubans. So how do you think French-Americans, for example, feel when you insinuate that they’re Anglo-Americans? There’s a tiny bit of bad blood there. So quit being an asshole.

And while we’re on the subject of not all members of any given race being alike: From whom, exactly, are these rude demands for bilingual education emanating? Most of the Hispanics I meet on a daily basis who have jobs and are going about them not only speak serviceable English, they’re fairly courteous and friendly. (Exceptions include a particular bunch of monolinguals with whom I used to bus tables, who would loudly discuss my lady parts in Spanish, sometimes in front of the customers—apparently under the assumption that everyone else was as linguistically retarded as they were—but I suppose that job could turn anyone into a jerk.)

So whence the assholism? My guess is: college kids, welfare parasites, professional political junkies, and other oiks who are too discourteous or stupid to learn a second language even upon switching countries; the rude-jerk contingent, in other words, that lurks within every demographic. Under ideal circumstances, the disdain of others keeps rude jerks in check. Unfortunately, the doctrine of the Moral Superiority of the Oppressed has allowed certain cross-sections of knuckle-draggers far too much leeway—nay, encouragement—in recent decades.

This is what you get when you don’t hold all groups to the same standards: the jag-bags in the crowd will gleefully test everybody’s patience till somebody snaps.

But wait! Maybe there’s another explanation. Check this out: According to the Pew Research Center, the current trend is for more Hispanics, particularly second- or third-generation, to be proficient in English, or even to speak English at home. So why start pushing Spanish now? Just as the problem is beginning to resolve itself, somebody has decided to make it worse. This implies that at least part of the driving force behind Spanglish public schooling is—why am I remotely surprised?—guilt-besotted white Leftists.

Oh, for Christ’s sake, you guys. Do you think this is helping anyone? If Hispanics want to integrate instead of colonizing—with all the upheaval and violence the latter has historically engendered; why do people never learn?—for the love of Shakespeare, don’t get in the way! 

Stop telling them that they’re a collective snowflake, stop insinuating that their heritage is more important than that of other waves of immigration, stop condescending to them (there’s that concern trolling again), stop pooh-poohing politeness—and for that matter, why not give the old politesse a go yourself? The white Leftists I encounter are typically about as charming as Daleks. Maybe if you were kind and pleasant to the actual people you encounter in your day-to-day life, instead of staking your identity on keyboard-warring for ressentiment, you wouldn’t be oppressed by the vague guilt that makes you act so weird.

Then you can quit trying to force the same not-terribly-foreign language down everybody’s throat, so we can spend our time learning whatever we’re passionate about: Chinese, Romanian, Sanskrit, Old Norse, Aramaic; there’s a whole world, and millennia of written history, out there.

Or we could even—I’ll admit this is for the sake of my own sanity—invest that time in improving our English skills. If being a writer in the 21st century means that I have to be plugged into the Internet matrix all day every day listening to yahoos caterwaul, it would be marginally less putrid if the ad hominems were competent.

The Foot of the Cross

via Gornahoor

Joris-Karl Huysmans describes his journey from Des Esseints to the Cistercians.
I must rejoice beyond the bounds of time … though the world may shudder at my joy, and in its coarseness know not what I mean ~ John of Ruysbroeck
John of Ruysbroeck was a thirteenth century mystic whose prose presented an incomprehensible but attractive amalgam of gloomy ecstasies, tender raptures and violent rages. ~ Des Esseintes, in Against Nature
Extraordinary things can only be stammered out, and stammer [John of Ruysbroeck] did, declaring that the sacred obscurity in which Ruysbroeck spreads his eagle’s wings is his ocean, his prey, his glory, and for him the four horizons would be too close-fitting a garment. ~ Ernest Hello
There is more knowledge and understanding of the human heart in one page of Ruysbroeck than in all the Stendhals, Bourgets, and Barreses in the world. ~ Joris-Karl Huysmans
 In a new Preface to the 20th anniversary edition of Against Nature, Joris-Karl Huysmans tried to explain how, eight years after its original publication, he ended up taking vows in a Cistercian monastery. However, the full story of his conversion was related in three subsequent books, we will focus at this time solely on what he wrote in the Preface. In particular, what is of interest is the influence of two writers, one a philosopher, the other a mystic, who achieved a certain prominence at that time. The philosopher was Arthur Schopenhauer, who was achieving a posthumous reputation that had eluded him in his lifetime. The mystic was John of Ruysbroek whose Adornment of the Spiritual Marriage had recently been translated into French by the theologian Ernest Hello.

After posting some extracts from Husymans’ Preface, we will conclude later this week with some fascinating ideas from Rusysbroeck. These will show how differently doctrine is understood today compared to the Medieval era. The important point to notice is to observe how a great artist approaches things. Like a poet, Huysmans seemed to have had negative capability and was willing to consider many ideas. Nowadays, in the age of social media, thoughts that require more than a dozen dozen words are ignored. Entire worldviews are expressed in seven declarative sentences, often with a florid background. Negative views are viewed negatively.

The idea of living with uncertainty and mystery is terrifying; all must be known and under control. Huysmans wrote:
I did not grasp that all is mystery, that we live only in mystery, that if such a thing as chance existed it would be even more mysterious than Providence.
The lack of negative capability makes an artistic conversion like Huysmans’ rare today. For example, what unbeliever could make this observation:
The strange thing was that, without my realizing it at first, I was drawn by the nature of my work itself to study the Church from a number of angles. It was in fact impossible to trace one’s way back to the only unblemished times humanity has ever known, the Middle Ages, without realizing that the Church was at the centre of everything, that art existed through her and by her. Not being a believer, I looked at her, a little defiant, taken aback by her greatness and her glory, wondering why a religion which seemed to me to have been created for children could have inspired such marvelous works of art.
At that time, Huysmans was under Schopenhauer’s spell, who was the philosopher of the tragic side of life. Like Huysmans, Schopenhauer was aware of religious literature like the Upanishads, Buddha, and even Christian mysticism. They all acknowledged what Schopenhauer observed, except that they offered a solution, an escape.
Yet I thought myself so far from religion. I did not imagine that it was only a short step form Schopenhauer, whom I admired beyond reason, to Ecclesiastes and the Book of Job. The premises about Pessimism are the same, only when the time comes to reach a conclusion, the philosopher disappears. I like his ideas about the horror of life, the stupidity of the world, the mercilessness of destiny; I like them also in the Holy Scriptures; but Schopenhauer’s observations lead nowhere; he leaves you, so to speak, in the lurch; in the end, his aphorisms are only a herbarium of dry plaints; whereas the Church explains the origins and the causes, indicates the conclusions, offers remedies. She does not limit herself to giving you a spiritual consultation, but treats and cures you, whereas the German quack, once he has proved the incurability of your condition, simply sneers and turns his back on you. … Never has Pessimism been of any comfort to those sick in body or in soul!
There was no single event that led Huysmans to his conversion. He tries to explain the inexplicable:
There was undoubtedly, as I was writing Against Nature, a land-shift, the earth was being mined to lay foundations of which I was unaware. God was digging to set his fuses and he worked only in the darkness of the soul, in the night. Nothing could be seen; it was only years later that the sparks began to run along the wires. I felt my soul moving to these shocks; it was at the time neither especially painful nor especially clear. … During the liturgies, I felt nothing more than an inner trepidation, a trembling that one feels when one sees or hears or reads a beautiful work of art, but there was no precise warning to get me ready to make up my mind.
He continues:
I was simply emerging, little by little, from the shell of my moral impurity; I was beginning to be disgusted with myself, but still I balked at the articles of faith. The objections I placed in my path seemed irresistible to me; and one morning, when I awoke, they were resolved, how, I have never know. I prayed for the first time and the explosion happened.
In these events, Huysmans was following the course described by John of Ruysbroeck:
And from this love there come forth perfect contrition and purification of conscience. And these arise from the consideration of misdeeds and all that may defile the soul: for when a man loves God he despises himself and all his works.

Cologne and the Mindset of the Muslim Invaders

via Alternative Right

Millennial Woes takes a long, dark look at the mentality and motivations of the Muslim migrants who committed the mass sexual assaults on German women on New Year's Eve, in the process brushing aside increasingly ludicrous Leftist rationalizations of this atrocity.

Australian Government Wins Court Case: Detaining Non-White Invaders Off-Shore Perfectly Legal

via BNP News

Australia has for some time paid millions of dollars to Nauru and Papua New Guinea to house asylum seekers that are applying for Asylum in Australia.

The country has been critised and condemned by the international community, but in all fairness their system is perfect.

A genuine asylum-seeker, that is fleeing from war, persecution and all the other horrors that come from war zones, would have no problem living in a camp until their claim is processed. Nor would they have a problem with making do with living in a place like Papa New Guinea once their claim has been processed.

Those that are just economic migrants, quite simply would never see Australia's shores, nor would they get the chance to give the authorties the run around once their claim has been refused.

Australia claims that their policy has saved lives. We agree. The figures speak for themselves:

Australia migrant deaths at Sea
Year Deaths
2015 3
2014 4
2013 217
2012 242
2011 330
Source : http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/thebordercrossingobservatory/publications/australian-border-deaths-database/

So there it is in black and white. Thousands of migrants have died thanks to the European political elite.

In 2015 3,406 migrants have died trying to get to Europe. The humane thing to do, is what Australia has done:
  • Secure Europe's borders.
  • Provide a solution for genuine asylum seekers that's unplatatble to economic migrants.
Do you think Europe should have a system similar to Australia?

The Refutation of Libertarianism

via Western Spring

Western Spring Editor's Note: There follows the transcript, slightly modified, of a very enlightening and incisive speech, made by Greg Johnson of Counter Currents at a meeting of the London Forum in October 2015. This speech is well worth listening to, and can be found on the internet, and the words and arguments used well worth studying and inwardly digesting for use when encountering debate with ‘right-wing’ individuals in particular, who have not yet progressed to nationalism:

The Refutation of Libertarianism

The title of my talk is a refutation of libertarianism, but it could be sort of an autobiographical thing, because it really is the story of how I started out as a libertarian individualist and ended up being a racist and an anti-Semite, and a kind of fascist! 

How did that happen?

Well, it’s not an uncommon progress of thought, it’s not an uncommon thing, in fact in the United States in the past five or six years after the Ron Paul kind of movement got big, a lot of people got interested in his brand of libertarian individualism and slowly migrated further to the right, to ethno-nationalism and to White nationalism and so forth. And I’m familiar with that intellectual dialectic because I went through it a long time before hand.

So what is libertarianism?

Libertarianism is basically the politics of individualism, and individualism is both a metaphysical and a moral thesis.

What is metaphysical individualism?

Well, it’s basically the position that only individuals exist. Meaning that groups are just collections of individuals with no independent meaning and reality or identity. Groups are just groups of individuals and every trait they have is derived from their constituent parts.

Metaphysical individualism is connected with a view that I call universalism, and universalism is the idea that there is only one race, the human race. We hear that all the time? Which is just a collection of individuals.

So universalism implies no meaningful distinction between in-groups and out-groups, between ‘us’ and ‘them’. There’s just one big race and we’re just a bunch of individuals. Therefore politics as Carl Schmitt defined it is impossible. Politics for Schmitt is all about the distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’, ‘friend’ and ‘enemy’. And for the libertarian individualist ultimately politics exists only on the sort of waning views of these smaller groups, these in-groups and out-groups that we imagine to be important, but they aren’t, and we need to get over our identification with these groups.

Therefore partiality to your in-group, as opposed to out-groups is morally illegitimate because there ultimately is no real ‘us’ and ‘them’. Therefore, we have to come up with a way of dealing with one-another – it’s not ‘us’ and them, it’s just ‘you’ and ‘me’. We’re just individuals.

So how can you and I get on with one-another? That brings us to the moral question of individualism, and that answer that the libertarian has is basically this: 

If there are no real groups, then there are no group values, there are just individual values, individual preferences, and the purpose of social institutions is just to allow individuals to pursue their own individual preferences. It’s all about the pursuit of individual happiness.

The great facilitator of individuals pursuing their own aims is capitalism.
And what is capitalism?

Well if you have something that I want and I offer you a good price for it, we can trade, right?

It’s mutually beneficial, it’s voluntary, we’re both satisfying our self-interest — and if you have nothing that I want and I have nothing that you want, well we just walk on by. We just leave one-another alone, you know, we are just ships passing in the night, or strangers passing in the street.

The market place requires only a minimal ‘night-watchman’ kind of state to protect us against force, and fraud, and breach of contract. And as individuals we have to practise a certain kind of individualistic ethic.

And what is the ethic of individualism?

It requires us to treat individuals as individuals. It’s very simple, right?

So what that entails is that we have to blind ourselves, if you will, to the various morally unimportant groups that are vestiges from our past. Groups we must blind ourselves to are: race; we must blind ourselves to class; we must blind ourselves to sex differences; we must blind ourselves to religious differences; to national differences, to all the things that divide us. Because these groupings are unreal and ultimately unimportant, we’re all just individuals.

The individualism ‘game’, is highly effective and advantageous for all players.

If there are no in-groups and no out-groups, just one race of individuals, then the scale of social organisation and social co-operation is implicitly global.

What does that mean?

It means we can have vast institutions where people are co-operating to change the world and the West has changed the world. What we call modernity, the transformation of the world in the last couple of hundred years has come about by individuals co-operating with one-another to create large scale institutions that have transformed the world.

If you live in a tribal society – a low trust tribal society – where strangers are regarded with suspicion, the scale of social order is severely constricted and once you run out of first and second cousins there’s really nobody you can trust, nobody you can co-operate with, and so that constrains society. Whereas the individualist game means that everybody who plays can trust everybody else, co-operate with everybody else, there’s no in-group or out-group, and that means that we can scale up to global civilisations, to galactic civilisations eventually, there’s really no end point to it, as long as everybody plays by these rules.

Now, the trouble with the individualism game though is that people cheat. Now, of course in any game people can cheat, but the individualist game has a unique disadvantage?

How do you cheat an individualist?

By working as a member of a group. But individualism prides itself on being blind to people working as members of groups.

Individualist are always slow to catch on when selfish groups are working with one-another against them. They’re always slow to catch on, because they are proud of being blind to groups. They might think, well, there’s something a little suspicious here, but I’m bigger than that. I’m just going to just keep playing the game that way I have been taught, and hope maybe, that I’ll set a good example, that I’ll change these tribal-minded people, these cheaters, they’ll want to be like me.

And the underlying assumption of all Western liberal individualists, is that everybody can be like us, everybody wants to be like us, we don’t even have to try really, to assimilate them, we’re just, our way of life is so wonderful, right? They can be like us, they want to be like us, they will be like us, we just have to persevere in showing how open and good we are – showing them the fruits of our civilisation, and they’ll come here and participate. They won’t come here to take it away from us, they’ll come here to participate in making everything grow and be better.

Now, it’s interesting that the most important founder of modern libertarianism, of race and nation blind libertarianism was Ayn Rand. She was born in Russia as Melisa Rosenbaum, she was ethnically Jewish and it just so happened that the intellectual movement that she created called objectivism, was overwhelmingly Jewish in its leadership, but of course the followers were piously blind to that uncomfortable fact.

It was obviously just meritocracy, right?

That they were all just rising because they were so good. It wasn’t because they were all first cousins from Winnipeg, which is actually true, and before that it was Minsk, or somewhere like that!

It was just meritocracy at work, colour blind meritocracy, and if you’re uncomfortable you’ve got to close your eyes because the virtue of objectivism is blindness, not objectivity, when it comes to race and ethnicity.

In that, libertarianism is sort of like the Frankfurt School, which is another Jewish intellectual movement. The Frankfurt School basically teaches ‘us’ that we have to be maximally open to the upward mobility of disadvantaged groups, previously excluded groups, and all these minority groups are just proxies for organised Jewry basically.

The goal of the new left really, is to create maximum upward mobility for organised Jewry, and all these others are there as a part of their coalition to help them move forward. It’s there to create upward mobility for them and to also blind us to the fact they’re working together and colluding together as a tribe, and it’s a very, very effective tool. It’s a very effective ideology.

What kind of people preach blindness as a virtue?

People who are up to no good!

So, what is the refutation of libertarianism?

Well, it’s a self-refutation in a way. The individualism game blinds its players to collectivist cheats, and the only way to save the game of individualism is to exclude the cheats. That could be any group that comes into Western individualist societies and demand that you treat them as an individual in every interaction with them. They demand that you give them a fair shake.

When you come to them and expect reciprocity, somehow it’s always their cousin who’s better qualified for the job. And so if you play a game by those rules, it doesn’t take many rounds, many iterations of that game before you start losing your power, your wealth, your society, to the people who cheat. And so libertarian individualism is a sucker’s game if you don’t exclude the cheats.

Well, when you start thinking that way though, you are no longer a libertarian individualist are you?

You start thinking, how do we get these people out. How do we physically remove these people from where we live?

That’s fascism, right?

Just ask anybody who reads the Guardian what that is, they’ll say, ‘aha, aha, that’s fascism!

This is how it’s happened, this is how so many former Ron Paul fans right, in the last few years, just through struggling with online debates basically, and it’s been taking place a lot online, have moved from being libertarian individualists to being White nationalists for want of a better term.

They realise that if they really value the individualist capitalist model of society, they cannot practice that without creating a bubble around it, and that bubble is a bubble of violence that has to exclude the cheats, the tribes, the parasite tribes.

And what’s the best way of defining that bubble?

Well, it turns out the most practical way of defining it is in terms of ethnic groups, of nations, and so suddenly they’re nationalists and that dialectic has been happening over and over again and I’ve been helping it along a bit, I’ve been rehearsing these arguments for years with people, and I’ve decided that I wanted to write this out and boil this down because I want to put it in a little book I’m working on called the White Nationalist Manifesto. There’s a need for a kind of primer arguing for racial nationalism and part of arguing for racial nationalism is excluding the false alternatives that a lot of people get distracted by. And those false alternatives are primarily on the right, and those are conservatism, that conserves nothing, and libertarianism, which can only be practices by excluding the parasite tribes, which means that you have to be a nationalist.

So, the end-point of this intellectual journey for people is the realisation, that individualism is not universal. Individualism is a product of the unique evolutionary and cultural history of Europeans, and it turns out that the more northern the European, the more individualistic they tend to be, and the less ethnocentric they tend to be. There is a writer named Will Rogers who’s famous for saying that “a stranger is just a friend you haven’t met yet”. That is a totally Nordic individualist attitude.

There’s no Armenian or Hebrew equivalent of that phrase. There’s no equivalent of that from South Europe, there’s no equivalent of that from the Near East, no equivalent of that from the Far East or Africa, or Papua, or any place else. They don’t think that way. They don’t think that way because their mentalities are the product of different environments and different social histories, different cultural histories.

Well, if a stranger is just a friend you haven’t met yet, what does that mean?

It means you’re out trekking looking for a mammoth to hunt and you meet another band of people. If you are open to them rather than suspicious, if you take certain risks to approach them in friendship, and you are capable of co-operating, you’ve increased your social scale. And that pattern has basically been perpetuated for thousands of years and it is the reason why Northern Europeans in particular have been able to create large scale, high trust, societies with very little public corruption, large scale businesses and non-profit organisations. It is tremendously advantageous until we admit people who cheat.

And then the virtues that made our civilisation possible are turned against us. Our willingness to be open and take certain risks to be open are not reciprocated, they’re just regarded as ‘bugs’, as flaws to be exploited. And there’s nothing more obscene than being exploited for your virtues, because of your virtues.

I once got some people mad at me when I said you know, there should be a difference between the punishment meted out to a guy who coshes you over the head from behind and steals your wallet, and the guy who comes up to you in the bus station with a sob story, and says, “Oh, I lost my wallet, and I’m trying to get home, my wife’s about to have a baby, could you … “, and he’s lying, right?

The first guy steals your money, but he doesn’t undermine the trust that is the basis of our civilisation, but the second guy, not only swindles you out of your money, he undermines civilisation itself.

I swear, I’d put them on the gibbet for that!

You have to preserve the foundations of civilisation, and that means the ability to trust strangers, for us. We are wired to be open to others, and our sense of high mindedness is caught up with taking risks to extend sociality. And when people exploit that, they have to be called out, and they have to be excluded, and if we have leaders who say, “No, no! We are defined by the value of openness and trust”, and they keep pushing this line even though it’s obviously the case that it is not being reciprocated and that we’re being exploited, then we have to relieve these leaders, of their powers and responsibilities. Which is my nice way of describing Kai Murros’s National Revolution, right?

So, that was about twenty-one minutes, so that’s good, libertarianism doesn’t take very long to be refuted.

Most of these bad ideas are maintained by the suppression of better ideas. That’s how the system works!

The enemy controls the media, because they have to control the media. They control academia, because they have to control academia.

If there was open discussion of these things, their ruling consensus would evaporate, practically overnight.

So, I want to thank you all for being part of the London Forum, because it’s a safe space for doing this kind of thing.

Eventually, I think we’re going to reach a day, and it’s going to come very quickly, when we’re all going to be surprised how brittle and hollow the reigning consensus is. And how its ability to maintain order by supressing dissent and by making dissenters feel alone breaks down.

At the beginning of 1989 all the smart money said that Communism would be around for a lot longer. They were totally unaware that the system was hollowed out, that people were cynical, that it was very brittle, that very were willing to kill or die to maintain it, and it was only a kind of momentary glitch, kind of unpredictable glitch in the system’s power to intimidate people and to make dissenters feel that they were alone, that allowed the streets to fill up in Dresden and Leipzig and for people to realise that they were not alone, that they were the majority and that the system was hollow. And the system started imploding from the top.

I think that the system that we’re in today is just as hollow and just as brittle, and is based on the same lie as Communism was. And what going to destroy it is the day when people realise that their dissent is not alone.

The media works by broadcasting signals out from a central point to isolated consumers of information, and that’s how they reinforce their narrative. They would love it if we were all alone in apartments, watching the TV or the Internet, watching it flicker, pumping their information into our heads. They would love it if they could do that because they can control our minds and control the narrative, right?

As soon as people start speaking face to face with one-another, they can’t control that, yet. The only way they can control that is by intimidating people, making feel like, “well I’m alone, I can’t speak out”.

That’s how they control us!

I was in Sweden a week ago today, and I was sitting in the breakfast room of the hotel, with some people who were hosting the event that I was speaking at, and I said, “You know, one out of four people in this breakfast room is a Sweden Democrat, you don’t know who they are”.

“One out of four people you ride with on the subway in Stockholm is a supporter of your views and you don’t know who they are”.

There has to be a point where we become more visible, and therefore in person-to-person interactions, we can break down the power of the establishment to control how we think.

That point will come, eventually. I don’t know how it will come, there’s no party here like there was a few years ago.

The Front National has a huge support base, the Sweden Democrats have 27% of the electorate on their side. It would be possible in those countries, for there to be a day when everybody comes out as a nationalist, and suddenly you see people wearing a little Front National ribbon or a little Sweden Democrat ribbon on their lapel, and suddenly you realise, “Wow! These people are not disproportionately: rural; uneducated; violent and stupid” like the media would have most people believe nationalists are.

They’d realise, “My, gosh! My veterinarian is a nationalist, the person I entrust my dog to, is a nationalist. The person who helps children cross the street at the public school, is a nationalist”.

They’d realise that we’re smarter than average, better educated than average, and so on and so forth.

The average Frenchman believes Front National supporters are rural bumpkins, whereas in fact they are overwhelmingly: urban; they have higher than average education; they have higher than average incomes, and they’re younger than people think they are on average. But as long as the party is invisible, the false narrative of the enemy will reign.

So there will come a day I think, sometime in France, sometime in Sweden and sometime in England, when their power to maintain those false views will be disrupted. And when that is disrupted, and their ability to contain our ideas breaks down, I think you will see a … perhaps a viral outbreak of nationalism.

Anyway, I want to leave you with that thought and thank you for having me here.