Feb 29, 2016

Feminism Is from Hell

via Cambria Will not Yield

Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full
Of direst cruelty! Make thick my blood;
Stop up th’ access and passage to remorse,
That no compunctious visitings of nature
Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between
Th’ effect and it! Come to my woman’s breasts
And take my milk for gall, you murd’ring ministers,
Wherever in your sightless substances
You wait on nature’s mischief! Come, thick night,
And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell,
That my keen knife see not the wound it makes,
Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark
To cry, “Hold, hold!”
      –     Lady Macbeth

Her voice was ever soft,
Gentle and low, an excellent thing in woman.

–     King Lear of Cordelia 

Sir Walter Scott, in his book The Lives of the Novelists, has this to say about the novelist Robert Bage:
Fielding, Smollett and other novelists have, with very indifferent taste, brought forward their heroes as rakes and debauchees, and treated with great lightness those breaches of morals which are too commonly considered as venial in the male sex; but Bage has extended, in some instances, that licence to the female sex, and seems at times even to sport with the ties of marriage, which is at once the institution of civil society most favourable to religion and good order, and that which, in its consequences, forms the most marked distinction between man and the lower animals. All the influence which women enjoy in society—their right to the exercise of that maternal care which forms the first and most indelible species of education; the wholesome and mitigating restraint which they possess over the passions of mankind; their power of protecting us when young, and cheering us when old—depend so entirely upon their personal purity, and the charm which it casts around them, that to insinuate a doubt of its real value, is willfully to remove the broadest corner-stone on which civil society rests, with all its benefits, and with all its comforts. It is true, we can easily conceive that a female like Miss Ross, in Barham Downs, may fall under the arts of a seducer, under circumstances so peculiar as to excite great compassion; nor are we so rigid as to say that such a person may not be restored to society, when her subsequent conduct shall have effaced recollection of her error. But she must return thither as a humble penitent, and has no title to sue out her pardon as a matter of right, and assume a place among the virtuous of her sex as if she had never fallen from her proper sphere. Her disgrace must not be considered as a trivial stain, which may be communicated by a husband as an exceeding good jest to his friend and correspondent; there must be, not penitence and reformation alone, but humiliation and abasement, in the recollection of her errors. This the laws of society demand even from the unfortunate; and to compromise farther would open a door to the most unbounded licentiousness.
The fact that Bage’s view of women has prevailed in society and Scott’s view of women has become “sexist” is the main reason that Europe is under siege and about to perish from an “unbounded licentiousness” that has rendered her people incapable of defending themselves against black barbarism from within and the Moslem onslaught from abroad. I am second to none in my disgust with the modern European men who have ceded everything to the Lady Macbeths among them, but when I look at the way a young white male is brought up – to detest his whiteness and his manhood – and when I look at the image of woman that is presented to him, how can I expect anything from the white male? Everything is done to improve the black male’s image of himself and the white woman’s image of herself, but what is done for the white male? He is told that the sooner he self-destructs the better it is for the world. He is not supposed to even think of marrying a woman whose “personal purity and charm” make him aware of the eternal God, who, because He loves man, gave him a helpmate. It sounds strangely out of place, the term ‘helpmate,’ when we look at modern women, but there was a time when men did depend on women to guide them upward. It all sounds so sexist, the idea that a woman fulfills herself by helping the male fulfill himself. But just such an arrangement once worked. It worked, I believe, because it was in keeping with God’s will.

There can be no doubt that the modern woman is a creature who has given herself over to Satan. Her exemplar is Lady Macbeth. The modern woman, always excepting the Christian woman who has resisted the wickedness and snares of feminism, is a traitor to everything Christian and European.(1) She is in the front ranks of the race-mixers; for every white male I see with a black female, I see at least fifty white females with black males, and she is in the front ranks of the welcoming parties for the Moslem invaders. “Better rapists than racists,” was the chant of a group of German women. From Angela Merkel to the female mayors of Hamburg and Cologne, it is the same refrain: “Whoever is anti-Christian and anti-white is welcome in our nations.”

The modern liberal belief is that woman’s “liberation” is a marvelous thing, it is a sign of an advanced civilization. But a close study of civilizations reveals just the opposite. In fact there are no feminist civilizations that have ever survived. Only civilizations that severely restrict the economic options of women and require monogamous marriage have ever survived for any length of time. Cultural anthropologists such as Spengler (The Rise and Fall of the West) and J. D. Unwin (Sex and Culture) have chronicled that fact of history. Of course the feminists, with the support of male sycophants, will simply tell you that there can be a feminist civilization, because they want it to be.
The hart he loves the high wood,
The hare she loves the hill:
The knight he loves his bright sword,
The lady — loves her will.
But there is a weakness in works of men like Spengler and Unwin, and the weakness is not that they misrepresent the facts. Their weakness is that they see rationalist man as the end product of civilization. For instance, Unwin concludes his work on Sex and Culture, in which he tells us it was the restrictive, patriarchal societies such as England from the 1500’s up to the 20th century that thrived and prospered, with the wishful hope that women can be given economic freedom, but then they will voluntarily give it up to become wives and mothers, because they will see it is the rational thing to do. Unwin, like all those committed to a belief that rational man is the ultimate man, greatly exaggerates the power of reason to alter human behavior. Again, let’s refer to Scott’s article on Robert Bage, the male feminist of his time:
Having adverted to his prominent error in Mr. Bage’s theory of morals, we are compelled to remark that his ideas respecting the male sex are not less inaccurate, considered as rules of mental government, than the over-indulgence with which he seems to regard female frailty.
Hermsprong, whom he produces as the ideal perfection of humanity, is paraded as a man who, freed from all the nurse and all the priest has taught, steps forward on his path without any religious or political restraint, as one who derives his own rules of conduct from his own breast, and avoids or resists all temptations of evil passions, because his reason teaches him that they are attended with evil consequences. In the expressive words of our moral poet, Wordsworth, he is
“A reasoning self-sufficient thing,
An intellectual all-in-all,”
But did such a man ever exist? Or are we, in the fair construction of humanity, with all its temptations, its passions, and its frailties, entitled to expect such perfection from the mere force of practical philosophy? Let each reader ask his own bosom, whether it were possible for him to hold an unaltered tenor of moral and virtuous conduct, did he suppose that to himself alone he was responsible, and that his own reason, a judge so peculiarly subject to be bribed, blinded, and imposed upon by the sophistry with which the human mind can gloss over those actions to which human passions so strongly impel us, was the ultimate judge of his actions? Let each reader ask the question at his own conscience, and if he can honestly and conscientiously answer in the affirmative, he is either that faultless monster which the world never saw, or he deceives himself as grossly as the poor devotee, who, referring his course of conduct to the action of some supposed internal inspiration, conceives himself, upon a different ground, incapable of crime, even when he is in the very act of committing it.
There are exceptional women like Carolyn Graglia (Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism), who gave up a law career to be a housewife and mother, but exceptional cases and hard cases make bad laws. The historical record clearly shows that non-Christian women, in the main, would rather be one of many sexual partners of a male at the top of the food chain than the wife of one male at the bottom of the food chain. In societies (if you can even call such abominations ‘societies’) where women are given unlimited career options apart from the one necessary career of a woman – wife and mother – some 80% of the males (Unwin’s numbers) are not able to reproduce because they can’t find mates. We can see this tragedy being enacted in our present society. The rock stars, the rich capitalists, the athletes, particularly black athletes, practice a form of serial monogamy which is really polygamy, while the disenfranchised white males either go without a spouse or else severely limit their families when they do find a mate.

The white nations are not reproducing themselves because of this new religion of feminism. Is it really a better world now? No! A world where a man feels himself to be a useful provider, however so humble his job and his home, and where a woman feels she is queen of the family hearth fire, no matter how humble the hearth fire, differs from our modern world as heaven differs from hell. But of course the liberals’ hell is the Christian’s heaven, and the Christian’s hell is the liberals’ heaven. Are the liberals happy in their man-made heaven? It doesn’t seem so. The women seek male restraints in the form of Islam and black barbarism, much more stringent than the Christian patriarchal restraints they say they hate. And the men turn to porn and/or sodomy to escape the responsibilities of keeping the modern women in check.

Which brings us to the question of who’s to blame. It’s customary for women to blame the white male for everything. And the white male is to blame for not being a heroic Petrucchio and taming the shrewish Katerina. But unless we take a truly male chauvinistic view of women, namely, that they don’t have fully human souls and are therefore incapable of behaving as human beings, we must put the primary responsibility for the sins of modern women on the women themselves. Elizabeth Browning, Christina Rossetti, Jane Austen, and Anne Bradstreet are exceptional because of their poetic gifts; they were not exceptions, in terms of their personal virtues, in the Christian era. There really were women who bore witness to the higher things of life, because of their love and devotion to their husbands and their children and to Jesus Christ, the sovereign Lord of the European hearth fire.

Of course the modern view of the women of Christian Europe was that they were repressed, the mere slaves of evil male patriarchs. How can this be true when the poets of the Christian era, the male poets and the female poets, present an image of the good woman that stirs our hearts to its very depths? Was that all an insubstantial pageant? If it was, then I, like Shakespeare and millions of other men who believed in the Christian romance of brave and virtuous knights and fair and virtuous maidens, “never truly writ and never truly loved.”

Everything comes back to the one essential question: Was Christian Europe a lie? Were the people whose customs, morals, and laws were based on their belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of God wrong? The modern Europeans have told us in no uncertain terms that the Christians of pre-20th century Europe were wrong, and they have forged a new society based on their beliefs. From a Christian’s perspective, the new liberal feminist society is from Satan. And the “Christian” church men have sided with the liberals. They want to shout, “Lord, Lord,” but they also want to serve Satan, so they label European Christianity as racist and sexist and bid us look to a new Christianity, a modern liberal Christianity in which Christ becomes a Satanic figure fighting against racism, sexism, and everything else of value that made and sustained Christian Europe.

That the world needs women to be wives, mothers, grammar school teachers, and nurses more than the world needs cop-chicks, bimbo newscasters, and female mixed martial arts fighters seems so obvious that I shouldn’t have to say it, but just as I must write about so many of the discarded customs and mores of the European people, so must I write about the demonism of feminism and the glory of the antique Europeans who revered the Christian women whose love and fidelity to the European hearth fixed men’s sights on Christ, because our modern world has reversed the moral world of the antique Europeans. The modern liberals revere Lady Macbeth and hate Cordelia.

It is now taken as a given that the Europeans of the Christian era were wrong about women, but should the liberals’ given be our moral imperative? Almighty God, forbid it! Their moral imperatives have given us the kingdom of Satan on earth. Like Puddleglum, who rejected the evil witch’s world, we must reject their liberal-feminist world.

The feminist West cannot defend itself from enemies within or from without. The Moslem invasion and escalating black crime has made that glaringly apparent. So what should our stance be vis à vis the West? It would be nice to stand by and let the Moslems and the black barbarians kill all the liberals. But things are not that simple. There is the European remnant. Our wives and our children do not deserve to be overrun by the liberals’ Moslem and colored allies (allies until they turn on the liberals). We will fight then, but we will fight a two-front war. We will fight the liberals, and we will fight the heathens from within and without. When the liberals fall, the white Europeans should be ready to replace them. The new Europe will be a very old Europe, where men and women love each other in and through the Savior, who is the source of all true love.

All is cheerless, dark, and deadly if we look at man through the eyes of the biological determinists or the eyes of the liberal utopians. The determinist sees only decay, and the liberal utopian tells us filth is not filth, it is ambrosia. Both views of existence ignore the one great truth that only the antique Europeans knew: There is a stunning, blinding reality called the grace of God. We have seen it in the culture of the people who loved much and so ordered their society that their mysterious human relationships pointed them to Christ the Lord.
For it is only through our mysterious human relationships, through the love and tenderness and purity of mothers, and sisters, and wives, through the strength and courage and wisdom of fathers, and brothers, and teachers, that we can come to the knowledge of Him, in whom alone the love, and the tenderness, and the purity, and the strength, and the courage, and the wisdom of all these dwell for ever and ever in perfect fullness. – Tom Brown’s Schooldays
Feminism is a dagger in the heart of old Europe, the only world that gave us a glimpse of our Lord’s house of many mansions. Who shall separate us from that house? Certainly not the liberal feminists, nor the heathens, nor the black barbarians. We are not rationalists, nor are we liberals; we belong to the European hearth fire which is sustained by His abiding love.

(1) The Christian woman will always be the strongest advocate for a Christian patriarchy. It has always been thus and it always shall be thus. The modern tragedy is that many Christian women have to work outside the home, because they can’t find Christian husbands or because their husbands cannot find work because “career women,” who shouldn’t be working, have the jobs meant for male providers.
One of the most disgusting modern blasphemies is the modern family, where the husband makes $100,000 plus a year, the wife makes $100,000 plus a year, and both send what children they have to daycare. That woman belongs with her children at home, and her job should belong to a white family man. What greater gift has God given us than to be part of His divine procreative process? And who is more ungrateful before God than the men and women who reject that gift and try to build a feminist hell on earth in direct conflict with God’s greatest gift?

A Frame-Up in Colombia

via Aryan Skynet

Historian and filmmaker Kim MacQuarrie
Historian and filmmaker Kim MacQuarrie’s recently published Life and Death in the Andes: On the Trail of Bandits, Heroes, and Revolutionaries, a volume of intertwined historical portraits and travel anecdotes, contains the following episode in its first chapter, “The Hunt for Pablo Escobar and the Search for El Dorado”:
“Do you know what Colombia’s greatest ‘sport’ is?” asks Alexander, a twenty-eight-year-old Colombian teacher from Bogota. Alexander is giving me and two of his friends a ride out to Lake Guatavita, the sacred lake where the story of El Dorado was born.
“Soccer?” I suggest, staring through the windshield from the front seat.
“No,” he says, shaking his head.
He looks over at me, and I shake my head, too.
“Murder,” he says matter-of-factly, shrugging his shoulders. Alexander swerves to give a wide berth to a tight cluster of bicyclists on the right-hand side of the highway, their helmeted heads down, their black and yellow outfits gleaming in the early morning sun. Bicycling and bicycle racing is a popular sport in Colombia, and on Sundays it seems like half of Bogota puts on tight shorts, shirts, and helmets and takes to the streets. The cyclists remind me of the fact that Pablo Escobar’s older brother, Roberto, was once a champion bicycle racer before he joined Pablo’s growing drug business.
“So why is there so much violence in Colombia?” I ask.
“Genes,” Alexander says, without missing a beat.
He looks at me, and I shake my head again, not understanding.
“We were conquered by murderers,” he says. “Our ancestors were thieves and barbarians. Violence is in our genes.”1

The reader, of course, is left to assume that European genes are the ones disrupting Colombia’s delicate social fabric. If not for those misbegotten Spanish conquistadores with their grasping for gold and their legacy of oppression and genocide, the simple Amerindian folk would be out riding their bicycles – which, given time, they no doubt would have invented on their own without the interference of meddlesome white men – in perfect harmony with the environment.

One would expect to find, therefore, that the country’s most murder-prone areas would host concentrations of European stock – or the fairest constituents of the “non-ethnic” population, as whites and mestizos are lumped together in Colombia’s census2. Instead, the most violent spot on the map is the heavily African coastal city of Buenaventura. Anastasia Moloney, writing for Reuters, describes this place as follows:
Communities living in waterside slums are often caught in the middle of drug turf wars in a city wracked by “terror in no-man’s land”, as Human Rights Watch (HRW) recently described Buenaventura. Ask any Colombian about Buenaventura and most will say the city is a “national shame”.
Colombia is considered a middle-income country and has enjoyed record foreign investment and robust economic growth. It’s almost impossible, though, to find any of that prosperity trickling down to Buenaventura’s residents. The city has long had a reputation for lawlessness and high levels of crime. But the recent wave of violence in Buenaventura has shocked Colombians and dominates local headlines. Over the past 18 months, the mutilated body parts of at least a dozen people have been found washed up along Buenaventura’s shores, according to Colombian human rights groups, the city’s bishop, Hector Epalza, and testimonies collected by HRW. Residents have reported hearing people scream and plea for mercy as they are cut up alive with chainsaws in so-called “chop-up houses” by gang members.
Colombian authorities blame the latest escalation of violence on a turf war between two rival gangs – the Urabenos and Empresa – as they fight for control over lucrative drug smuggling routes and extortion rackets in Buenaventura. […]
Murders take place every day in Buenaventura. The city has one of the highest murder rates in South America – at nearly 50 murders per 100,000 people – compared with Colombia’s national average of 31 murders per 100,000 people. Parents say they fear their children getting caught in gang crossfire and hit by stray bullets.
Captured members of the Urabenos

Meredith Hoffman, writing at Slate, offers this:
“Buenaventura, the best ecotourism destination in Colombia,” Edwin Zuluaga, director of Buenaventura’s Association for Tourism and Culture, reads off the first slide of a PowerPoint presentation. “Buenaventura has incredible touristic potential.”
Zuluaga’s ambitious presentation obscures a darker reality about Colombia’s principal port city: The ships and stilts out the window hover over a watery graveyard, a dumping ground for those who have fallen prey to ongoing violence. A horrific war between rival gangs has turned this impoverished city of 400,000 people on Colombia’s Pacific coast into the country’s most violent city, featuring “chop-up houses”—where people are reportedly dismembered alive—and one of the highest murder rates in the world. Colombia’s military is arriving in large numbers to restore order in the city, whose coastal position also makes it a major drug trafficking hub. […]
In recent years, as Colombia emerged from its decades-long guerrilla war, the economy has boomed and tourism has flourished. But in Buenaventura, feuding gangs—the Urabeños and the Empresa, both successors to the paramilitary groups that were formed to fight the leftist FARC guerrillas—routinely terrorize local populations, threaten local journalists for reporting crimes, and sometimes kill young children. Adding to the madness, Colombian guerrilla fighters last month targeted the city with a bombing that cut off electricity for days. Police have done little to improve the situation, according to a recent report by Human Rights Watch, which found that police avoided patrolling high-crime neighborhoods and have been seen holding meetings with gang members.
Buenaventura store
A corner store in Buenaventura

Simon Romero, covering the crime situation in Buenaventura for The New York Times in 2007, contributed these memorable images:
Soldiers search almost every car at checkpoints on the winding road from Cali. Guerrillas recently fired mortar shells at the police headquarters. The stately Hotel Estación, a neo-Classical gem built in 1928, where executives come to hammer out deals to import cars or export coffee, is guarded by dozens of soldiers in combat fatigues.
“It’s as if we have a little Haiti within Colombia,” said Lt. Nikolai Viviescas, 25, a police officer who was transferred from Bogotá six months ago. “It feels like another country.”
Although Bogotá, the capital, and other cities have become secure and prosperous enough that it is possible there to forget about this country’s four-decade-old civil conflict for a while, Buenaventura is a different story.
Killings in this city of about 300,000 climbed 30 percent last year, to 408, giving Buenaventura the nation’s highest homicide rate at 144 per 100,000, more than seven times the rate in Bogotá and four times that of Medellín. And this year, the police say, 222 people have been killed here. […]
“Nothing in this fight is about ideology,” said Antero Viveros, the head of a community group in Lleras, a large slum controlled by the guerrillas. “It is about drugs, with members of one ethnicity killing each other.”
Despite its emergence as Colombia’s most dangerous city, people displaced by fighting in the countryside still see Buenaventura as a refuge. About 42,000 refugees have arrived here since 1998, mostly Afro-Colombians from rural areas, according to the federal government. They swell the ranks of what may be Colombia’s poorest slums. […]
President Álvaro Uribe has forcefully criticized the violence here and sent new police and navy commanders to the city at the start of the year.
About 2,000 soldiers and police officers, who also wear combat uniforms and carry semiautomatic weapons, patrol Buenaventura.
Still, critics say authorities have long neglected Buenaventura’s problems in part because Afro-Colombians receive scant federal attention.
Nongovernmental groups say Afro-Colombians account for up to a quarter of the country’s population of 44 million, by some measures giving Colombia the largest black population in the Spanish-speaking world. And more than 80 percent of Buenaventura’s residents are black.
This month, when the president chose Paula Marcela Moreno Zapata as culture minister, was the first time an Afro-Colombian ascended to a cabinet position in the country’s history. Yet political analysts and black advocacy groups said the appointment was largely to appease Democrats in Washington who complain of racial exclusion in Colombia as they weigh a trade agreement. […]
The entrance to Lleras looks like that of any shantytown elsewhere in Colombia, with cinder-block shacks and a few paved streets. But deeper into the slum, the structures are made from discarded wood, with newcomers squeezing into lean-tos alongside older houses. Rusted barrels collect rain from zinc roofs, the only source of fresh water.
Police patrol Buenaventura

Sewage bubbles down trash-strewn dirt roads before flowing into the sea. Stereos blare vallenato and reggaetón music. And precariously built homes are hoisted above the water on spindly pieces of wood.
Many of the residents of these hovels hesitate to offer their names out of fear of retaliation over what they might say. One middle-aged man, offering a visitor a cup of rum from the steps of his house, said he had worked as a stevedore at the port years ago before losing that job. “Now,” he said, “I do nothing.” […]
Civilians are increasingly caught in the cross-fire. Guerrillas were blamed for an attack earlier this year in which five people, including one police officer, were killed when a homemade mortar shell was fired at a police truck. Security officials here say laws that are lax on minors, who carry out many of the attacks, make it difficult to reduce the killings.
“We have a justice system designed for Switzerland, yet we have no Swiss here,” said Col. Yamil Moreno, the chief of police in Buenaventura. In the same breath, Colonel Moreno, who was transferred here from the north, callously described Buenaventura’s dying combatants.
“These vagabonds,” he said, “are good only for drinking, dancing and killing.”
Europeans do, then, bear a degree of responsibility for a great deal of Colombia’s carnage – specifically for importing the African slaves whose slum-dwelling descendants now disport themselves in the “chop-up houses” of a city boasting a homicide rate that makes Detroit look like Whitefish, Montana.

  1. MacQuarrie, Kim. Life and Death in the Andes: On the Trail of Bandits, Heroes, and Revolutionaries. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2015, p. 18.
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia#Ethnic_groups

Non-White Invasion Is Causing “Chaos” in Greece

via The New Observer

Greece Migration Minister Yiannis Mouzalas has warned that the number of nonwhite invaders “trapped” in that country could reach 70,000 after the other Balkan states instituted a “cap” on all border crossings.

Speaking in an interview with Greece’s Mega Channel TV, Mouzalas said that his government estimated that “the number of those trapped will be from 50,000–70,000 people next month,” and that there were already some 22,000 “trapped” in Greece.

The “trapped” invaders are all from nonwhite countries in North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and elsewhere who have not the slightest claim to “asylum” in Europe.
Some 6,500 invaders were stuck at the Idomeni camp on Greece’s northern border with Macedonia on Sunday as Macedonian border officials let only 300 invaders pass the day before.

On Sunday the crossing remained closed, according to Greek local police.

The build-up at the camp, which can hold up to 1,500 people, began in earnest last week after Macedonia began refusing entry to Afghans and imposed stricter document controls on Syrians and Iraqis.

But the bottleneck was expected to worsen after EU members Slovenia and Croatia, as well as Serbia and Macedonia, imposed a limit of 580 invaders entering their borders each day.

Austria introduced a daily cap of 80 “asylum-seekers” and said it would only allow 3,200 invaders to move on to Germany per day. As a result, the tighter controls have had a big knock-on effect in Greece, where the nonwhites have been arriving at the rate of over 3,000 per day from Turkey.

Mouzalas said he expected the influx to slow when the information about closed borders spread in Turkey. He also said the campaign alongside NATO’s presence in the Aegean Sea, which is helping to police Greek waters, was expected to reduce arrivals by 70 percent.

The Refugees No One Wants

via White GeNOcide Project

In South Africa, White Boers are forced to live in shanty towns because the post-Nelson Mandela era isn’t as “rainbow” as was promised.

For over a decade, laws have been in place which deliberately put Whites at a severe disadvantage when looking for work. 400,000 White South Africans now live in poverty, almost one out of ten.

White South Africans who are lucky enough to find work, must worry about being raped, tortured and murdered if they work on farms.

Things are so bad that a presidential candidate had to promise “never a white genocide under our rule.

This particular camp is in Munsieville, near Johannesburg. There are about 80 more camps full of outcast Whites in the country. 

They want to leave, but most cannot afford it, and few countries are willing to take more than a handful. You will not hear about these real refugees on the TV because they are White.

The mass media won’t document the suffering and farm murder genocide of White South Africans because it does not fit their narrative.

White people are supposed to be the oppressors who hold all the power, and we are nasty as well because we don’t want our countries to become “rainbow” nations . . . like the “rainbow” nation South Africa is supposed to be.

Our own governments and ruling classes are trying to bring about the “rainbow” by moving millions of non-Whites into every majority White country on the face of the planet.

It’s not “diversity” if you eliminate a race of people, it’s genocide. This is White genocide because we White people are the only ones who will lose our countries.

Where Is Prince Eugene? Multicultural Madness and the End of Europe

via The Occidental Observer

Author's Note: Below is my text-speech translated from the German original into English, delivered on February 20, 2016 in the Austrian city of Klagenfurt, at a rally against non-European migration. The anti-immigrant demonstration was organized by “the Identitarians” (IB) (Identitäre Bewegung), a rapidly growing cultural-political movement in Austria The IB rally was attended by approximately 700 people from all walks of life and all ages, including groups of younger people from Croatia and Slovenia. Approximately 100 police cordoned off the IB rally to keep them apart from the approximately 150 antifascist (“Antifa”) demonstrators marching several hundred yards away. My speech in the German language was held on the steps of the entrance to the city hall and lasted 30 minutes. The Antifa protesters, who could neither be seen nor heard from where I stood, were holding some posters including the one with the Yugoslav communist flag which read “Tito proved how to take out the Nazis” — a vicious threat indeed. Next day I emailed a letter to the mayor of Klagenfurt and to the Austrian federal police with the copies sent to hundreds of different media outlets and politicians in Austria, complaining about the Antifa deaths threats against the IB rally participants. However, during the IB rally no incidents were reported. The Austrian mainstream media, other than the Antifa websites, reported relatively objectively about the entire affair.

 *   *   *

Ladies and gentlemen:

Everything always turns around the correct or incorrect definition of political concepts. We call ourselves freedom-loving people concerned about the future of our European identity. Our opponents, however, call us Nazis, racists and xenophobes. From our experience, from my own experience in the former Yugoslavia and in multicultural America, as well as my reading of the research of many sociologists, multicultural states tend to survive for only a short while. Sooner or later they end up in civil wars. My reference point is the artificially cobbled together state of Yugoslavia which ended up in shatters — despite its many academic well-wishers and all the eulogies written on behalf of its constituent peoples.

Today’s migration chaos has officially been given the false name of “the refugee crisis.” Out of thousands and hundreds of thousands of migrants flocking to Austria, most are not refugees at all. They are “refugees” only in so far as were labelled as such in advance by the Austrian ruling class and media. Oddly enough, these migrants do not apply for asylum in Turkey or elsewhere on the proverbial route through the Balkans. All are eager to come to Germany. They imagine Austria, Germany and Sweden as La-La lands (“Schlaraffenland”) where they can live well and have their way with beautiful girls at will. But, hold it ladies and gentlemen! These migrants must not be blamed for their false perceptions; it is our politicians with their self-deceptive illusions who trigger such wishful thinking among the migrants.

The self-obsession with multiculturalism among our politicians bears an additional deceitful name, namely the misnomer of creating a “welcoming culture”, although the real name that needs to be used in plain German is “the culture of self-elimination,” “the culture of guilt,” or “the culture of death,” or the “culture of self-hate.” The locution “welcoming culture” has nothing in common with the ancient European culture of welcome. Today’s welcoming culture is merely a word used by liberals for the failed communist project. What former Communists in Eastern Europe could not achieve by force, the System in place now is attempting to achieve through the ideology of multiculturalism. Communism fell apart in Eastern Europe because a better version came to fruition, albeit under a different name, in Western Europe. The System is convinced that the European peoples must be replaced in a multicultural super state by non-European migrants who in turn could constantly be reproduced as a new and perishable commodity.

Multiculturalism: Liberal Substitute for Communism

Let’s ask our politicians and the advocates of multiculturalism whether they want to live in multicultural neighbourhoods, such as the Favoriten district in Vienna, or the Neukölln district in Berlin. They will surely answer: “No way!” They love to lecture about multicultural society as long as they themselves can keep their distance from these areas, as long as they continue to live in safety in their own golden enclaves. If some day these do-gooders decide to take up residence there, I will offer them my sincere apologies. I have lived long enough in multicultural districts in South Los Angeles in the United States and have learned early on the life wisdom of the double lock on my apartment door and the safety that comes from owning firearms.


From a historical and philosophical perspective, the multicultural craze today, including the so-called welcoming culture in Austria, Germany and the EU, is an offshoot of the ideology of hyper-moralism, as was well described by the German anthropologist Arnold Gehlen. It can be scientifically proven that the more the population of a country is ethnically and culturally homogeneous, such as Japan for instance, and the more a country is inhabited by ethnically and culturally interrelated citizens, the greater are its chances for survival, including feelings of mutual solidarity. Among non-European peoples in Africa and Asia, for example, it is hardly conceivable to import foreign peoples on a massive scale. Only among the life-weary European peoples one can observe such suicidal welcoming traits — not among wealthy non-European states such as Saudi Arabia, for example. Ultimately, such pathological hyper-moralism and altruism will take Europe to collective suicide. Let me paraphrase the German scholar Carl Schmitt: When a people becomes weary of politics, this does not mean the end of politics; it only means the end of a weaker people.

Why is this hyper-altruism and this self-denial culture, or the so-called welcoming culture so pronounced in Germany and Austria and less so in other European countries? The reason for this is not hard to guess. Any criticism of multiculturalism by a politician or an academic in Austria or in Germany can earn him a stigma of “fascism.”  And that means an immediate obituary in professional life. Werner Faymann and Angela Merkel, for fear of being dubbed Nazis, must therefore double down on the mass importation of migrants. The ideology of multiculturalism has become a kind of negative legitimacy for the whole of Europe and particularly for the German and Austrian political class. Conversely, any critical debate about multiculturalism is labelled “xenophobia.” The taboo word “xenophobia” has thus become a justification for the political class in Europe to forever uphold the status quo in the political arena.

By contrast, critics of multiculturalism are being portrayed by the media as absolute villains, if not outright criminals. Hence the multiculturalists, in order to justify even the grossest aberration in their own System can comfortably depict their System as a lesser evil. The politicians in Austria and Germany are well aware of this, and therefore they need to be more Catholic than the Pope; they keep on increasing the massive floods of migrants into Germany and Austria. Accordingly, they treat the migrants better than the migrants expected in the first place. It is naive to think that the advocates of the welcoming culture can be refuted with arguments. The German word “do-gooder” (“Gutmensch”) mirrors perfectly this self-censoring, hyper-moralistic multi-cultural species. Should someone in Austria accidentally venture himself into voicing scientific observations about the myths of multiculturalism, he will land promptly on the radar screen of the thought police. In fact, the establishment and the media are only capable of maintaining themselves in power as long as they demonize those who think differently — as was the case in the former communist Yugoslavia, where each dissident was automatically labelled “a fascist or a criminal outlaw.” Austrian politicians, but also politicians elsewhere in Europe, are mired in political self-delusions. On the one hand, non-European peoples are being romanticized, and on the other, the native peoples of Europe are subject to demonization.

The so-called culture of welcome is not sustainable. It cannot bring about mutual understanding among peoples; instead, it deepens mutual hatred of peoples. Countless times we have seen this in all multicultural societies. For example, Asian Americans in the United States do not like Afro-Americans and Afro- Americans are not beloved by Hispanic Americans. Riots between members of different peoples among today’s migrants are never discussed in public. Even if one supposes that all evil Germans, all evil Nazis, and all evil Fascists disappeared someday, this would not bring about perpetual peace. Racism and xenophobia are not proprietary trademarks of Austrians or Germans, or for that matter of other European peoples.


The mendacious nature of the welcoming culture therefore requires us to clearly decipher our true enemy. However, the important thing to stress is that the Asian or African migrants are not to be blamed for the decline of Europe. Blame should squarely rest with the establishment politicians along with the capitalist “superclass.” In order to restore our German, Austrian, or indeed the identity of all Europeans, we must first dismantle capitalism. Multiculturalism is a false ideology linked to the myth of the boundless economic growth which depends on ceaselessly importing migrants. Non-European migrants know well that they can only live carefree in self-hating Europe. Feelings of self-hatred are unknown among politicians in their homelands. The financial capital of European oligarchs, coupled with feelings of guilt among Europeans on the one hand and leftist multicultural sermons on the other, in turn provide the terrain for the additional arrival of millions of non-European migrants. If Europeans were to rebuild their own identity, they must first rid themselves of unregulated capitalism. Foreign migration will then come to an immediate stop. Migrants will have no motivation to reside in our countries and wallow in false illusions.

Soon we shall see how our history will unfold. In retrospect the question arises as to why did our Prince Eugene conduct such long wars against the Turkish invaders? Fortunately, however, history is always open and it is up to us to reshape it anew. This time it is not the years, but the days of decision that lie ahead of us. We all know very well the greatest political wisdom of all times: “whoever decides to be a sheep will soon find his wolf.” Therefore ladies and gentlemen let’s stop being sheep. The fight goes on. Thank you.

Meyer Lansky’s Lawyer Still Runs Las Vegas

via DavidDuke.com

Carolyn Goodman, the mayor of Las Vegas
You just cannot make this stuff up. This article from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency is a fluff piece about Oscar Goodman and his wife Carolyn. Oscar Goodman was Las Vegas mayor from 1999-2011, and when he bumped into the three-term limit he got his wife elected. She is now in her second term.

What is remarkable is that the article below reveals that the Goodmans moved to Las Vegas so that Oscar could work as the lawyer for Murder Incorporated’s Meyer Lansky, the most notorious Jewish mobster of the Twentieth Century. Moreover, it mentions that he was introduced to the gang by none other than the late Jewish Senator Arlen Specter, who at the time was a Philadelphia prosecutor and asked Goodman to take two mobsters accused of murder out to dinner. The article makes no effort to justify or rationalize this bizarre request. Maybe the Jewish author just assumes that the Jewish readers will understand that Goodman was being a mensch. 

If you are wondering why it is okay for Specter, Goodman, and his wife to be so chummy with Jewish murderers and mob bosses, don’t expect the article to explain, because it doesn’t. But it does mention that Mrs. Goodman has been deeply involved in the Las Vegas Jewish community for over 50 years and would like to “make aliyah” if it weren’t for the fact her children live in Nevada. And most of all, her husband, Meyer Lansky’s lawyer, “is really a very good Jew and very religious and very loyal to it.” And that’s want really matters, isn’t it.

Stop Stumping (for) the Trump

via TradYouth

When drafting off of a vehicle, one must be mindful to refrain from getting carried away and ramming into the vehicle. Some White Nationalist leaders have become like delusional “side pieces,” so giddy about their man that they’re keen on ruining the man and his marriage in order to have him exclusively for themselves. We must back off a bit, both to protect his campaign and to protect our own cause.
Back in July, I wrote Let’s Not Be Trump’s Chumps
Trump cut through dozens of limp-wristed Tea Party libertarians, social conservative mumblers, and minority token candidates to land in the top spot in the polls and become the candidate that the other candidates are forced to react to with this one weird trick: Honestly and directly address White issues. To quote Ann Coulter, whose latest bestseller–¡Adios, America!–is scandalizing Beltway orthodoxy, “Drive up the White vote. That’s your base!”
But that’s all it is for him, a weird trick. Granted, an eccentric billionaire who’s beholden to his own ego rather than to Jewish and globalist financial backers is probably preferable to the rest of the available contenders. But he’s not one of us. He’s not pursuing shared interests. He doesn’t have shared goals. Trump is approaching this political campaign as a businessman, not as an ideologue, and he’ll follow the money and ego gratification away from White Interests as quickly as he followed the money and ego gratification toward White Interests.
The intervening months have been a boggling whirlwind of politics shifting in a national populist direction, with Donald Trump leading the charge. He has definitely proven more courageous and consistent than I would have ever imagined. Even honey badgers stand in awe of Trump. Yet, while the left-wing media doesn’t have the capacity to corner Trump into denouncing White Nationalism, we do. Some corners of White Nationalism have become so eagerly supportive of Trump that they’re threatening to stump him, practically begging for the response which he has studiously avoided for months; an explicit and direct denunciation of our position.

When it comes, it’ll reflect poorly on our discipline as a movement. It’s one thing for rank-and-file members to get excited and cross the line. Trump is happy to brush that aside, anyway. And a lot of the low-ranking stuff, like random twitter accounts crossing that line with trolling and such, has proven productive activism. But if the movement’s leadership keeps insisting (falsely) that Trumpism and White Nationalism are one and the same, the man is left with no choice but to offer a correction.

My position, one which happens to be both factually true and tactically prudent, is to confirm that he happens to be speaking to White issues while underscoring that he’s not one of us. Back in August, I followed that script in the New Yorker interview
“The political system hasn’t been providing an outlet for social-conservative populism. You had this Ron Paul revolution, and all the stuff about cutting taxes, small government, and that’s just not the electrifying issue that they were expecting it to be. Simple folks, they want the border secure. They want what Donald Trump is mirroring at them. I think he’s an intelligent businessman who identified what the people want to hear. He’s made a living finding these sorts of opportunities.”
Even assuming the most flattering framing of Trump and his motives, he’s a civic nationalist, perhaps even a civic variety of national socialist. He’s a fresh break from everything normal in American politics. But there’s nothing in his biography, in his policy positions, in his public statements, or in his moves which imply that he’s actually truly one of us, in that he cares about preserving our racial heritage. He just doesn’t…and that’s okay.

The misunderstanding occurs in perfect thirds. A third of the reason everybody in our circles thinks he’s White Nationalist is because the elites’ media wishes to smear him as such. A third of the reason everybody thinks he’s White Nationalist is vain wishful thinking. We did, after all, invest untold hundreds of thousands in Black Lives Matter open borders hero Rand Paul because we desperately wanted to believe we mattered. The final third of the reason for this mass delusion is Trump’s reptilian approach to who he supports and denounces.

To the untrained ear, a man who refuses to denounce White Nationalists when cornered is obviously one of us. For the overwhelming majority of politicians, that would certainly be the case. A student of Trump’s Art of the Deal and his frighteningly transactional manner with which he interacts with people will see something entirely different playing out in this exchange. Unlike the herd of cowardly humans whose endorsements and denunciations are a meteorological affair, Trump creates his own political micro-climate. He’s the unmoved mover, …a natural alpha and bully in human affairs.

One gets the impression that if some NAMBLA members showed up in full force to support Trump, his immediate reaction would be to brush off demands for him to denounce them and redirect the conversation. But if NAMBLA explicitly endorsed Trump, then the organization’s leadership repeatedly insisted that Trump and NAMBLA are basically on the same team, at a certain point the imperative of winning would overshadow his first instinct and he would go ahead and denounce NAMBLA.

If we keep trying to drink his milkshake, he’ll kick us out of the sock hop. For some radicals, that’s part of the plan. But I think I speak for most of us when I assert that we should patiently exploit all of the indirect opportunities for outreach and persuasion which this wildly successful national populist campaign present. It’s not like we have the numbers, the logistical maturity, or the people in place to replace Trump if we managed to budge him aside and take center stage. Who are we kidding?

These things take time and patience.

Trump is not one of us. Trump is not pro-White. Trump is not a sleeper agent burst into action from deep behind enemy lines. He’s simply a populist whose campaign has been and will likely continue to be very good for White American interests. Berlusconi, Putin, and others of a similarly proto-fascist political disposition have been very good for their homelands, but none of them have actually had the welfare and fate of their ethnic identities first in mind. Insisting that National Populists are the same thing as true Nationalists harms both types and helps neither.

The Left Despises Diversity

via Angry White Dude

We constantly hear leftists touting the beauty of diversity and how everyone and their views should be accepted and respected. That is, except anyone who differs with leftists.

Here is a reporter trying to attend a Ben Shapiro speech at Cal State University – Los Angeles:

Oh, the irony. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear Cal State teaches the meaning of the word ‘irony.’ “Diversity is the answer. Diversity is never the problem” they shout. And if you don’t agree with us we will silence you. Or assault you. With the left, might equals right. It’s not the idea and debate that matters. It’s winning and achieving your agenda no matter what. Zero sum game. Remember “hey we need muscle here” to prohibit the media from reporting a protest as was shouted by a journalism professor at the University of Missouri. Irony.

Why is the left so incapable of allowing alternative views? Because leftist political ideology is largely indefensible. Making sense of nonsense is something not easily done. Especially when your side largely has no sense. It’s much easier to break faces.

The only tactic leftists have is brute force. Drown out your opponent, shut down or interrupt their speeches, personally destroy or shame them through political correctness, use every Alinsky tactic to silence them because you cannot defend your positions in open debate.

As AWD has said for years, leftists are at their root core nothing more than brutes. They care not for the individual rights upon this country was founded. They and especially their elite political masters seek total control and zero dissent. Through any means necessary.

The end result of liberal politics is the Soviet Union or Cambodia. Venezuela is well on the way with government violence now taking place against those protesting the absence of food, power, and toilet paper in the streets. Just a decade ago, those same protesters were welcoming the promises of wealth through totalitarianism from communist Hugo Chavez. Today, they starve. Rinse and repeat.

It’s easy to be a socialist in America because there is always food in the grocery store. Capitalism created the wealth that socialism now destroys. Only a leftist could protest evil corporations by posting to social media on their iPhone. While drinking a Starbucks. After driving their Ford to the protest.

My bet is not a single Black Lives Matter protester in that video is paying their college costs. I would further venture that not a single one is pursuing a major that will result in a job after/if they graduate.

The challenge to educate and debate in an effort to change minds is a pipe dream with leftists. The country is completely split with those who mooch (Sanders/Hillary supporters) and producers tired of having their money forcefully redistributed (Trump/Cruz supporters). There is no middle ground.

I have stopped debating liberals because 1. they are not bright and 2. always end up calling names when they are faced with facts and data that destroy their lies.

Remember this. There is no diversity with those who continually demand diversity. They are intellectual brutes. And, if they win, their political opponents always end up on the wrong side of the gun. Always.

Bravo, Ben Shapiro! But I can tell you your efforts will change not one leftist mind. Pity.

Good Europeans

via Radix

Perhaps the chief fault that one can lay before the European Union is that of giving a bad name to the very good idea of cooperation and unity among Europeans. Not a day goes by without the latest illustration of European governments’ collective impotence in some perpetual “crisis,” the endless episodes of which have long bored everyone.

It was not always so. In the early 2000s, the project was still fresh, having consolidated a customs union and forged a common currency, both unprecedented achievements in European history. The Union kept growing, with post-communist Central European nations, in particular, rejoining their Western brethren. No one knew exactly what would be achieved. But many Europeans, otherwise adrift in this age of nihilism, were refreshed and even seduced by the noble prospect of working together on a “great project.” Many liberals, alienated by the “ugly America” of George W. Bush and the neoconservatives, sang paeans to the “European dream” and prophesied the emergence of a rival European superpower.

So much for all that. In fact, the European Union has been revealed for what it is: An incoherent confederation of semi-sovereign mass-media democracies, warped at once by the political hegemony of the American Empire and the cultural hegemony of liberal-egalitarian ideology. This “Europe” flails from one crisis to the next, torn between the electoral imperative of keeping the lives of the “posthistorical” Europeans’ as soft and “convenient” as possible, and the exigencies of globalized capitalism and multiculturalism.

The tragedy is that Europe could be so much more. The European Union is sustained in part by liberal moralism (“a union of signaling”) and in part by something nobler. François Mitterrand called it the European peoples’ “instinct of greatness.” This unquenchable, self-sacrificial, Promethean spirit I would name “the call of the stars.” This is the same spirit which compelled Christopher Columbus to embrace the mad ambition of circling the Earth and drove Galileo Galilei to contemplate the heavenly spheres and defy orthodoxy.

Jewish, American, and European elites have, since the end of the Second World War, carefully worked to suppress, segregate, and neutralize another of our instincts: The tribal instinct, the call of the blood. Nationalist parties and thinkers have been systematically ostracized and the imperative of maintaining the ethnic cohesion of our lands has been explicitly rejected.

It does not have to be this way. One can easily imagine forms of European cooperation and unity which, unlike what is currently on offer, would satisfy both Europeans’ patriotic instinct and their instinct of greatness. Indeed, embryonic antecedents for such great projects already exist.

A Great Wall of Europe is an obvious first choice for such a project. The Franco-German military-industrial giant Airbus could, instead of building walls to protect Arabs, build walls to protect Europeans. Billions of euros, cutting-edge technology, and international cooperation could be committed to securing the continent’s collective borders in Spain, Italy, and Greece. Nothing would better reconcile northern and southern Europeans, and enamor them with the idea of European unity, than working together to save our shared continent from Afro-Islamization. As the Great Wall of China protected that country from Central Asian barbarians, so would a Great Wall of Europe forever keep at bay invaders who, from the Umayyads to the Ottomans, and from the White slave trade to the ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Serbs, have done incalculable damage to our peoples.

The complete restoration of Europe’s strategic autonomy, allowing Europeans to enjoy full independence to determine their destiny, is another potential great project, one which would require continental or even transcontinental scale. Thus, Europe’s characteristic dependence on foreign superpowers, in place since the Second World War, would be undone. For instance, I think of restoring Europe’s energy independence, something which could only be achieved through a reconciliation with Russia as an integral part of the European family. In the latter respect, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s praise for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s action to “defend European identity” is extremely encouraging.

Another project would be for Europeans to work together to be at the cutting edge of pioneering research efforts to unveil the secrets of our universe. This is already the case with the CERN physics research center in Geneva, the ITER fusion reactor in Cadarache, southern France, and the European Space Agency. But more could be done and, in this respect, we must be acutely aware of the need to keep up with China. China is truly a super-nation, larger than all of Western countries put together, but with a level of cohesion approaching that of one of our nation-states. Assuming China can resist attempts to infiltrate her body politic, such as the Chan Zuckerberg Project, then that awesome nation will no doubt be the leading rival to European civilization.

For instance, China is pioneering new research on the very nature of humanity and in the art of eugenics, notably with the lavishly-funded Beijing Genomics Institute. The Chinese, as we all know, are already an innumerable, intelligent, and disciplined people. But how hegemonic would their power be if they were allowed to achieve a decisive edge in human evolution? Why have European governments and institutions not come together to fund, for example, a Berlin Genomics Institute for the common benefit of our entire civilization? Surely, the improvement of our humanity is one of the grandest endeavors conceivable for European Man.

Then there is the promotion of European identity and consciousness itself. This is the Alternative Right’s most important role. In this, European-Americans – precisely because of the hegemony of American culture in Europe – have an absolutely critical role to play. If the Alternative Right can discredit or subvert American liberal-egalitarian ideology, then Europe too would be mechanically liberated as a result.

Further afield, we can imagine an Identitarian Europe in which the Franco-German cultural TV channel Arte would not broadcast degeneracy and the Erasmus student exchange would not just be an excuse for the European youth to binge drink in another country. We can imagine a Europe in which service of our biocultural heritage and civilization would be a sacred, even spiritual calling.

Finally, there is the fate of White America, of European America. There should be nothing more shocking and enraging for a European contemplating America, than the sight of the persecution and decline of our brothers of blood and spirit across the Atlantic. European-Americans are massively underrepresented in many critical areas of American society, such as elite academia and the media, not to mention the financing of the Democratic Party. European-Americans are being physically displaced and their historic nation and communities are being destroyed as an explicit objective of the U.S. government, in favor of creating what President Barack Hussein Obama calls “a hodgepodge of folks.” What’s more, these injustices and this destruction are being legitimized and enforced by the systematic demonization of European-Americans in academia and the media. There are severe punishments meted out to anyone who would explicitly, and often merely implicitly, defend ethnic European interests, even as other groups such as Jews, Blacks, and Hispanics systematically organize to defend their own.

This persecution of the Europeans of the New World must be intolerable to all Europeans of the Old World, and we must organize to come to their aid, lest they end up like the extinct Europeans of Saint-Domingue and Rhodesia. Conversely, if European-Americans emancipate themselves first, then it will be their duty to join in the struggle to liberate the European motherland.

All European peoples must be vitally concerned with the freedom and right-to-life of all other European peoples, and above all, of those on both sides of the Atlantic. That is the great struggle of our time, our great project, answering both the call of the blood, and the call of the stars.

Hail, Caesar! and the Artifice of Hollywood

via Right On

If movies are the quintessential American art form, the Coen brothers are our Shakespeare. In a career spanning three decades, their films have examined just about every nook and cranny of the American milieu, from white trash in rural Texas (No Country for Old Men) to puffed-up, pretentious government employees (Burn After Reading) to naive, gullible Midwesterners (Fargo). The Coens have honed their craft to such a degree that even their dud films (The Ladykillers, The Hudsucker Proxy) are still interesting to watch.

The Coens’ films are defined by their willingness to examine aspects of American life that are usually wallpapered over by both Leftists and conservatives. 2013’s Inside Llewyn Davis is a tale of a man who failed at life during the most prosperous period in American history; The Big Lebowski is about a ’60s hippie burnout dealing with a world that’s left him behind; A Serious Man examines emasculation and matriarchy in Jewish culture. While their films borrow stylistically from directors of the past, the Coens are capable of making what they steal their own, unlike other postmodern hacks such as Quentin Tarantino.

Hail, Caesar!, the Coens’ latest film, continues their tradition of lifting up the floorboards of American culture to reveal the rot underneath. A savage look at Hollywood’s Golden Age, Hail, Caesar! is another display of the Coens’ ability to weave comedy and suspense into a cohesive whole. While it falls short of greatness, it’s funny enough to make it worth a watch.

Set in the 1950s, Hail, Caesar! revolves around Capitol Pictures production head Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) and his quest to keep his stars’ scandals out of the public eye. The title refers to the studio’s feature movie, a Cecil B. DeMille-esque production on the life of Christ. The plot is set into motion when Baird Whitlock (George Clooney), the dopey, alcoholic star of the aforementioned film, is kidnapped by a gang of Communist screenwriters.

Hail, Caesar!‘s central plot is fairly threadbare by the Coens’ standards; the film’s emphasis is on the idiocies of Capitol Pictures’ actors and directors. Much screen time is dedicated to Mannix’s quest to arrange a sham marriage for DeeAnna Moran (Scarlett Johansson) after she gets knocked up out of wedlock, as well as “singing cowboy” Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich) coping with being horribly miscast in a period drama. The film also makes time for a hilariously homoerotic Fred Astaire-style dance number starring closeted Marxist Burt Gurney (Channing Tatum).

The movie succeeds due to the Coens’ comedic touch and attention to detail. Little things, such as Baird Whitlock spending most of the film in a Roman toga and getting his sword holster stuck on chairs, are what sell the movie and keep the laughs coming. For his part, Clooney steals the show; his character’s aggressive idiocy is a callback to his roles in previous Coen films such as Burn After Reading and O Brother, Where Art Thou?

The Coen brothers are masters of using “negative space”: what they don’t emphasize in their films is almost as important as what they do. Hail, Caesar!‘s unstated theme is image: the artificiality of Hollywood and popular culture at large. The film is defined by the phoniness of its characters, whether it’s Mannix working to keep a lid on his stars’ indiscretions, Moran arranging a fake adoption to cover up her pregnancy, or a pair of gossip columnists (both played by Tilda Swinton) threatening to publish rumors about Whitlock’s homosexuality.

The Coens previously explored the manufactured nature of the movie industry in Barton Fink, which depicted Hollywood in its infancy. That film’s titular protagonist found himself crushed between his high-art Broadway pretensions and the mass-market drivel he was expected to write. Hail, Caesar! depicts a Hollywood reeling from the 1948 United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. decision, in which the Supreme Court dismantled the studio system under antitrust laws.

While TCM and Robert Osbourne may paint a rosy picture of Hollywood’s Golden Age, the reality is that the Paramount decision effectively ended it. Hail, Caesar! shows the movie industry’s fall from grace in the ’50s and ’60s, as they resorted to increasingly bombastic productions such as Cleopatra and How the West Was Won to maintain profitability and compete with the emerging medium of television. The film is aided by cinematographer Roger Deakins, whose glossy, colorful landscapes, flimsy sound stages, and poorly-designed props (for example, an animatronic whale near the beginning had me howling) accurately recreate the artificiality of 1950s cinema.

For all its farcical whimsy, though, Hail, Caesar! is also a tribute to one of the few filmmakers who rose above the pomp and circumstance of his time: Alfred Hitchcock. While Barton Fink alluded to Hitchcock as well (most notably in imitating the train tunnel “sex scene” at the end of North by Northwest), Hail, Caesar! ups the ante by naming one of its minor characters “Carlotta Valdez,” a reference to Vertigo. The film also draws inspiration from other 1950’s Hitchcock thrillers such as The Man Who Knew Too Much.

Alfred Hitchcock was one of the first film directors to examine the artificiality and constructed nature of movies themselves. Everything about Hitch’s films, from his much-publicized cameos to the plots themselves, focuses on the blurry line between reality and fiction in Hollywood. North by Northwest is about an ordinary man mistaken for a spy who, by the end of the film, has become a spy of his own volition; Rear Window merges Jimmy Stewart’s character’s perspective with the audience’s, turning them into Peeping Toms; Psycho depicts a man so distraught by his mother’s death that he assumes her identity.

As overrated as it is by critics, Vertigo is the best example of Hitchcock’s motif of film as deception. At its heart, Vertigo is a story about image: Scottie Ferguson (Jimmy Stewart) falls in love with a woman pretending to be someone she is not, who is in turn pretending to be possessed by the ghost of her great-grandmother. She’s a matryoshka doll of false identities, her relationship with Scottie a Jenga tower of lies. Scottie’s madness and desperation to recreate his fake relationship with Madeleine is a commentary on movie audiences, who choose to deceive themselves for entertainment.

Similarly, Hail, Caesar! is a commentary on nostalgia among film buffs and the golden era they mythologize. It also serves as a warning about the state of modern Hollywood. Capitol Pictures’ obsession with high-budget spectacle has eerie parallels to today’s film industry, which is piling its money into sequels, special effects and comic book movies in a desperate attempt to keep ticket sales from declining. Innovative, visionary directors such as David Lynch have been handed their pink slips as movie studios pump out schlock like Guardians of the Galaxy, Mad Max, and an endless succession of Star Trek and Star Wars sequels. Just as the Golden Age of Hollywood ended, this situation cannot last.

As thin as its central plot may be, Hail, Caesar!‘s big-picture analysis and attention to detail provide enough guffaws to make it well worth watching. All hail the Coen brothers: they haven’t let us down yet.

The Psychology of Gun Control

via Alternative Right

In America, the discussion of political issues is an endless and perpetually inconclusive cycle: Party mouthpieces formulate stock arguments, and the media disseminates them to the rank and file, who then absorb and regurgitate them. They are then repeated ad nauseam whenever a well-publicized event returns the question to the limelight. Solutions are never discovered. This has been standard procedure for at least the last three generations, which, incapable of seeing outside the narrow parameters of bipartisan debate, accept it as the norm. But why?

Politics is not an academic discipline and does not involve the abstractions of that milieu; its matters and its terms are direct and concrete. Its subjects are familiar on a functional level to the majority of the population. If objective truth does exist then the questions being asked in the political milieu should end in objective answers. If Americans can calculate solutions to algebraic equations, they should certainly be able to do the same for poverty, crime, energy, and healthcare.

This has not happened, from which I infer two things: (1) that Americans are truly ignorant of what they speak about politically; and (2) their reason for engaging in political debate is self and partisan promotion, not the actual search for solutions.

Here it is noted that, like everything else in mass democracy, one’s political orientation is commercial, in other words a consumer choice. People select views (prepackaged for them) that satisfy their psychological disposition, and this reflects them in not only the political, but also the human dimension. Politics is merely a smokescreen for culture, fashion, and interpersonal interaction.

Conservatism and Liberalism function, not only as filters for reality perception, but as subcultures. Hence, they can be studied sociologically in the same manner as the music and art scenes.

"We're not stopping guns, 
we're just making friends."
One feature of subcultures is the possession of their own built-in lexicon, a collection of terms used only by their members, and only to phatically communicate within the group. This is cliché regurgitation, and it is understandable: subcultures are the vehicle through which people satisfy their mental drives, mutually reinforcing each other in the process. Original thought - or thought at all - is not the point; nor is reference to things outside the group or interaction with people outside the group.

When analyzing the terms used within the subculture you will detect similarities between them and patterns will emerge. What are the most commonly heard terms in the liberal vocabulary? “Tolerance,” “sensitivity,” “inclusion,” “diversity,” “equality,” “humanity”...all phonetically soft, bright, and feminine. They all please the liberal ear in a manner.

Even if they are all essentially restatements of each other, each still possesses its own star in the liberal zodiac. Public figures use buzzwords for their emotive, rather than intellectual content; as such, their weight is connotative rather than denotative. Notice also that since the decline of Marxism the left has draped its periodicals, websites and t-shirts in aqua colors, all understood to evoke peace and tranquility.

Conservatism, for its part, is no different. The character it presents and the personality it attracts differ, but the dynamics uniting the two do not. Where the liberal’s lexicon is soft and feminine the conservative’s is hard and masculine: “tradition,” “hierarchy,” “history,” “nation” and all its derivatives. Note also the colors favored by the Right: earth tones.

It can be seen that the force driving politics is irrational, fueled by subjective preferences valued without reason. If politics is a manifestation of psychology, then so are such areas as culture, lifestyle, and pastimes, explaining the high rate of correlation between the two. One of our society’s central conceits, that people form their views after active research and modify them when presented with contradictory information, is a falsehood. Gun control illustrates this.

But it is not even about gun control, as that would require dealing with issues and other people in a hard-headed and realistic way far beyond their emotional comfort zones. Instead, it is merely about espousing gun control for consumption within the sub-cultural group. It is all about preaching to the choir, and ignoring the awkward realities beyond the swell of their own droning organ.

Would-be gun grabbers are invariably the products of urban areas in which gun ownership is not part of the culture; it is the rare exception. Their knowledge of guns, gun owners, and the issues, habits, and traditions that drive gun-ownership is miniscule. It never extends beyond the caricatures portrayed in popular culture.

"The Other" – great material to signal against .
Moreover, these people are “the Other.” They inhabit small towns in rural areas, where the ratio of church attendance and heterogeneity is unacceptable. Such are not America, or at least not what they wish America to be. In the liberal fantasy, they need to be redesigned so as to become unrecognizable, to fit the encroaching zeitgeist, but, again, this is essentially a fantasy.

Guns have no place in the antiseptic utopia that Liberals create as a group-wank-fantasy every time their subgroup interacts. In moments like this, Liberals naively believe that their motivation for stripping cultural and intellectual inferiors of their favorite toys would be a desire for public safety; in reality, their motivations are purely a matter of sub-cultural group interaction and acceptance.

Politics is a conflict of tribes, and of subjectivities. Who is the winner? Is it the man with the best information, most logically valid arguments, and finest ethical credentials? Of course not, for such a man exists in the desolate no-man’s land between the self-affirming and self-isolating herds of the subjective and emotionally-driven subcultures.

On Doomism

via Atlantic Centurion

One of the major challenges a movement like White nationalism has to contend with is a pervading sense of doom. For such a constructive project as nationalism, there must be destruction of some sort—otherwise what use would there be in convincing others that we need to build something new? That destruction is the essence of doomist view—our world is going to be destroyed, we cannot stop it, and we are going to have to live with it, The transformation of the United States into a multiracial White-minority state is one such destruction scenario; it clearly marks the end of an era which has lasted since the 1600s and a huge loss of our habitat as a population. We are fifth century Romans, waiting for someone to come along and deliver the killing blow. And the sands of time for us are running low.

But this destruction is not and will not be sudden and cataclysmic. More akin to geological time, it is all the harder to notice and its heralds look like paranoid and ideological madmen to their high time preference peers. Change is gradual and not enough of our people are cognizant, even all these years after the warnings of Spengler, Grant, Stoddard, Glubb, Powell et al. about the fate of Western civilization. Or they don’t care. Or worse, they think the costs of resisting the decline outweigh the benefits of participating—as the system rots, they are fine rotting along with it, even rationalizing it.

Some people loathe the idea of doom and always look on the bright side of life. The alt-right is bigger than it has ever been, and a new crop of fresh and media savvy nationalists is rising in the United States and Europe. Nativism is a resurgent trend on both sides of the Atlantic as Europe is swamped with foreign hordes dramatizing Camp of the Saints and the United States drifts closer and closer to Brazilian levels of vibrancy. Politicians openly campaign on restricting immigration, deporting illegals, and barring refugees, all of which are overwhelmingly non-white movements of people into White countries. There are good signs that the Overton window is shifting right, and that metapolitical progress is being made that could lead to even further shifts towards explicit ethno-nationalism.

The optimists are right, but the doomists  aren’t wrong. It is often observed that the worsening conditions provide more opportunities for “redpill moments,” and that is what we are seeing. We are indeed facing destruction and there is an ongoing slow collapse, even while we are making progress at the same time! (The accelerationists must be rubbing their hands). These processes are not mutually exclusive—and if we lull ourselves into thinking they are, we will lose. We have to be aware of both forces and keep the big picture in focus. Even though more and more conservative voters are becoming de facto White populists, the 2016 election could ultimately be between a jewish communist and a pro-amnesty Cuban bisexual. These are not signs that US politics are improving, not at the country level.

What it comes down to is as follows: we have to stay positive and keep the fire lit, realizing optimism and doom are emotional responses to our environment and a matter of perspective. They don’t change facts on the ground, only our framing of them. The doomists absolutely have a point when they talk about our demographics and the apathy of the majority of our people. And the optimists are right that we are growing in influence. But, even if we don’t win in the next ten or twenty years or our lifetimes—and I don’t just mean elections—there are still millions of White people on this continent and there will be millions of us in the future. In my opinion, the best case scenario would be a Soviet-style collapse in the near future, and the creation of ethnostates and multicultural states in North America, thus providing us with homeland(s) to secure an existence for our people and a future for our children. But there’s no guarantee that we’re going to get that. We may have to deal with Brazilianization and a low trust society. And if we do, we are going to have to be smart and diligent about it.

If one is truly committed to White racial survival, he has to stay high-energy about it no matter how things go. If the worst case scenario comes—defeat without resistance—our task is to keep the fire lit so we can pass the torch, not mope.


Agency is a must if we want our population to persist without a state and requires deliberate organization. Anglo-Americans are not the first people to have been subjugated in their own homeland. As our government ceases to be our own and our numbers dwindle, no longer will it be a subconscious decision for White people to have White children with White spouses and raise them in our culture—the only people doing this will be ethnocentric. Those who do not care about their identity will simply join the ranks of the imported mocha biomass. That kind of consolidation is powerful. Even in the doomist vision of separatism failing to actualize, there will be potential for resurgence.

Doomists are adept at pointing out downward trends and highlighting how bad things really are. But merely identifying a disaster is not sufficient; one has to either adapt to it or challenge it, not surrender. No one has ever changed the world by being low-energy.