Mar 16, 2016

Against Trump: Trotskyite, Corporatist, Neocon "Elites" Conspire to Thwart the Will of the People

via American Renaissance

Over the long weekend before the Mississippi and Michigan primaries, the sky above Sea Island was black with corporate jets.

Apple’s Tim Cook, Google’s Larry Page and Eric Schmidt, Napster’s Sean Parker, Tesla Motors’ Elon Musk, and other members of the super-rich were jetting in to the exclusive Georgia resort, ostensibly to participate in the annual World Forum of the American Enterprise Institute.


As revealed by the Huffington Post, Sea Island last weekend was host to a secret conclave at the Cloisters where oligarchs colluded with Beltway elites to reverse the democratic decisions of millions of voters and abort the candidacy of Donald Trump. [At Secretive Meeting, Tech CEOs And Top Republicans Commiserate, Plot To Stop Trump, March 7, 2016]

Among the journalists at Sea Island were Rich Lowry of National Review, which just devoted an entire issue to the topic: “Against Trump,”and Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the Trumphobic New York Times.

Bush guru Karl Rove of FOX News was on hand, as were Speaker Paul Ryan, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Lindsey Graham, dispatched by Trump in New Hampshire and a berserker on the subject of the Donald.

So, too, was William Kristol, editor of the rabidly anti-Trump Weekly Standard, who reported back to comrades: “The key task now, to . . . paraphrase Karl Marx, is less to understand Trump than to stop him.”


What we see at Sea Island is that, despite all their babble about bringing the blessings of “democracy” to the world’s benighted, AEI, Neocon Central, believes less in democracy than in perpetual control of the American nation by the ruling Beltway elites.

If an outsider like Trump imperils that control, democracy be damned. The elites will come together to bring him down, because, behind party ties, they are soul brothers in the pursuit of power.


From what has been reported, it would not be extreme to say this was a conspiracy of oligarchs, War Party neocons, and face-card Republicans to reverse the results of the primaries and impose upon the party, against its expressed will, a nominee responsive to the elites’ agenda.


We talk about the “deep state” in Turkey and Egypt, the unseen regimes that exist beneath the public regime and rule the nation no matter the president or prime minister.

What about the “deep state” that rules us, of which we caught a glimpse at Sea Island?

A diligent legislature of a democratic republic would have long since dragged America’s deep state out into the sunlight.

Climbing the Mountain

via Kevin Alfred Strom

Listen Now

Four days ago a major step forward for the National Alliance happened in, of all places, a Virginia courtroom. Alliance Chairman William White Williams (pictured) was there and this is his report:

“A few months before I was named Chairman of the National Alliance, six former members — who all resigned from our organization three and one half years ago — formed an ad hoc group, calling themselves NARRG (National Alliance Reform and Restoration Group). They sued their then-Chairman Erich Gliebe and the Alliance’s then-Board of Directors as individuals 26 months ago for $2 million — after they made some unsuccessful attempts to purchase the Alliance from Mr. Gliebe. They claimed their goal was the resignation of Gliebe, whom they’d supported for a decade but with whom they had become disenchanted. But when Mr. Gliebe finally did resign, they weren’t satisfied. They continued the suit and went on the attack against the new Alliance leadership, raising and spending a great deal of money in the process.

“The six had their day in court this week. I retained counsel to represent the Alliance’s interests in May of 2015, once the NARRG grouplet dragged the Alliance itself into the lawsuit. The Alliance’s firm position since then has been that, among other affirmative defenses, the NARRG plaintiffs had no standing to bring the cause of action in the first place. This position was backed up not only by the Alliance’s carefully drawn Articles of Incorporation and By-laws, but by case law and the Commonwealth of Virginia’s time-tested corporate statutes.

“The National Alliance’s Motion for Demurrer, essentially a motion to dismiss the case, was heard in Circuit Court on Tuesday, March 8, 2016, and was granted, with the judge ruling that the NARRG plaintiffs, indeed, did not have standing. He likened their lawsuit to the absurd prospect of members of the National Rifle Association trying to sue the heads of that organization because they didn’t like the way the NRA leadership and board had governed. [Actually — this is Kevin Strom speaking here — it was even more ridiculous than that: They were not even members — they were former members — with no more standing to demand $2 million and a handover of the group’s assets than six disgruntled former telephone customers would have to demand a handover of the assets of AT&T. — Ed.]

“It was allowed that the plaintiffs can file an Amended Answer against the original defendants if they wish, but not against the National Alliance. However, the judge questioned how the plaintiffs could file such an Answer since it has been ruled that they have no standing. The stubborn plaintiffs and their attorney do not want to admit defeat so are likely to keep raising money on their Internet blog from misinformed donors to try to somehow get their hands on what remains of National Alliance assets. It is difficult to believe how this group of disgruntled former members of the National Alliance thought it was a good idea to petition a court of law to dissolve the Alliance with hopes that it would be turned over to them. According to legal experts, if dissolved it could have eventually been turned over by the court to even the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) or another high bidder.

“The National Alliance has already been restored and reformed, no thanks to this expensive, destructive lawsuit. With this unfortunate episode behind us now, we can spend more of our resources on productive work for our people’s future — instead of on attorneys. I believe that many prospective members will get off the fence now and support us. Some good people, I believe, were waiting to see who would prevail in the courts. Some supporters of the NARRG grouplet had good intentions when they got behind the effort to force former Alliance Chairman Erich Gliebe to step down and name a successor. Those former Alliance supporters are welcome to reapply as members or supporters and close ranks with us.

“Invoices for legal expenses — very significant expenses — related to this lawsuit are still outstanding, so donations to the National Alliance’s Legal Defense Fund will be very much appreciated:

A NARRG spokesman already misrepresented the outcome of the hearing, by the way, stating “there was no decision made as to standing at the March 8th hearing,” a complete reversal of reality.

This program, and the other public National Alliance media, have devoted very little space to the legal harassment — and disgustingly vicious mudslinging — from the NARRG grouplet and their recently-acquired SPLC-asset allies. (They have been discussed in depth, however, in the National Alliance BULLETIN, the monthly internal print publication for members and supporters of the Alliance –which, by the way, has been continuously published since 1970, longer than any other racial-nationalist periodical in the United States.)

There are a number of very good reasons for that policy.

One reason is that it’s impossible to win a mudslinging contest. Making accusations and starting vicious rumors costs nothing and takes almost no time. The accusations do not have to be true or even plausible, and one person can issue ten slanders under half a dozen different phony names every 15 minutes or so with ease — so imagine what a small team can do, armed with a blog or two, a Facebook page, and access to so-called free speech forums where anonymity rules, paid infiltrators and intelligence agents abound just looking for an excuse to stir up dirt, and oversight is nil.

Another reason is that one of the mudslingers’ goals is to put you on the defensive, use up your time and energy and resources responding to accusations — thereby giving a lot more attention to them, and get a bigger audience for whatever venue the attackers have chosen for their filth. This will happen even if you don’t participate in the mudslingers’ venues, because a mere reference to their latest attack in your own media will send gossip-hungry or simply puzzled readers to the source.

Another reason is that even careful, logical, unassailable step-by-step refutation of the mudslingers’ accusations will avail you nothing. By the time you have finished refuting one allegation, the malicious liars will have fabricated and posted five more. And when you wake up in the morning, there will be ten more to deal with. If you show that one particular anonymous poster is not to be trusted, and enough people believe you, that “screen name” will disappear and a couple of new ones appear in its place. All your herculean efforts that prove conclusively that lies are lies and that liars are liars will be swept away by a tsunami of fabrications and insults made by people who care for logic and truth about the same way that Hillary Clinton cares about murdered White farmers in South Africa.

If you or your organization come under an attack like this, consider it a badge of honor. That the System and the Enemy and their dupes have decided to denigrate and destroy you is surely a sign that you are doing something good in this world — and knowing that is one of the best feelings to be had this side of Elysium.

My advice if you find yourself in this kind of situation: Make a statement of the basic facts when necessary to the audience that really matters, as Chairman Williams did in a few select venues and in the BULLETIN, but for the most part let the rocks land where they may as you climb the mountain of achievement. Don’t let these or any attacks stop you from doing excellent work for your people, for it is by persistently working to achieve your goals, with all the skill and money and life-energy at your command, and by never giving up, that you will win the respect of those who really matter. It is they who will add their efforts to yours — and ascend to the heights by your side. Be thankful for the confluence of fate and circumstance that made the rock-throwers show themselves as they really are, since you don’t want them by your side anyway.

The same basic principle applies in reverse. Don’t spend much of your energy attacking the phonies and agents and lunatics (there is considerable overlap among these categories) you may discover infecting or trying to infect our sacred cause. Tell others about them privately, and always if asked, but only very occasionally publicly and only if the occasion demands it. Don’t use too much of your precious time and life-energy dealing with unworthy souls.

It’s five minutes to midnight and our people’s very existence is at stake. Act accordingly. Use your life for the only cause that really matters in this universe, and do the very best work that you can possibly do. Don’t get too wrapped up in swatting insects. If one of the worst of the pests tries to draw blood, slap it down decisively, but don’t let the swarm become your focus. You’ve got to keep climbing the mountain. Unless we make it to the summit — the summit of a racial state and White living space and a government answerable to us alone — we are doomed. Eyes upward toward the goal — arms pulling — legs pushing — with a helping hand to those of our folk who need a little help. That’s the way upward. That’s the only way the future we dream of can exist.

The National Alliance has for some years been climbing that mountain, inch by inch, with a backpack full of bricks tied to our shoulders. Now part of that weight has been lifted. But we do not relax on that account — we accelerate.

Further Comments Regarding Die Wilde Jagd and Odin Mimir Befragend

via Aryan Myth and Metahistory

I happened to stumble across this article may or may not have been influenced by my earlier article from 2013

I find it incredulous that the author should assert that Adolf Hitler would have modelled his appearance after a 19th century painting! Hiler's hairstyle was hardly unique to him and was typical of the times as was his moustache. What cannot be replicated however are his facal features which entirely match the face of Wotan in Franz von Stuck's Wilde Jagd. Hitler's fondness for the painting may or may not in part be linked to the facial resemblance and its year of creation, 1889 which significantly was also the year of Hitler's birth. Hitler I am sure on a sub conscious level associated himself with Wotan and this is made clear from both the writings of Carl Gustav Jung and Miguel Serrano.

What is equally incredible is the painting by Emil Doepler in 1905 of Odin Mimir Befragend: 

It is interesting that the face in the later painting is most clearly that of a mature Adolf Hitler and we must take note that in 1905 Hitler was an unknown 16 year old. Mimir is of course a far more ancient deity than Wotan and indeed in the Eddas Odin relies on Mimir for the revelation of esoteric knowledge.

The Return of the Orthodox Nationalist

via TradYouth

There are few people who have impacted my life as much as Father Matthew Raphael Johnson. Father Johnson is an Orthodox priest who has influenced by view on Christian history, theology and my own personal beliefs more than any other member of clergy. On top of being a priest, Father Raphael has a Ph.D. from the University of Nebraska in political science, a published author with a dozen books under his belt and the former head of the Barnes Review.

Most of our readers are familiar with Father Raphael through his popular podcast series The Orthodox Nationalist, that originally aired on the Voice of Reason Network. These podcasts are some of the most interesting and informative podcasts available online today. Covering subjects of Russian history, Orthodox theology, classic Russian authors and modern politics; The Orthodox Nationalist provided insight for countless thousands into topics seldom covered in the West.

One cannot be well informed on geopolitics if one does not understand the history of the key players of both the past and the current age. Father Raphael provided this knowledge, in-depth looks at the history of Russia and her people and insight into the push of the New World Order.

I can say without a shadow of a doubt that I would not have the views I had today if it wasn’t for the dedicated writing and podcasts of Father Raphael.

 After taking a bit of a break, Father Raphael is coming back with all new episodes of The Orthodox Nationalist airing here at the Traditionalist Youth Network. Our dedicated readers can look forward to new articles and podcasts from Father Raphael to help guide them spiritually and politically in the modern age.

If you have never listened to an episode of The Orthodox Nationalist, I encourage you to start. I guarantee that you will soon be binge listening to these informative, fun, and enlightening podcasts.

Keep posted here at Trad Youth for the newest episodes of The Orthodox Nationalist, coming very soon to a computer near you!

African Immigrants Terrorize Melbourne, Proving yet again That Diversity Is not a Strength

via Saboteur365

Unless I overlooked it, you won’t find a word about the ethnicity of Australia’s Apex gang in the first linked story in this post. That’s because they’re Africans.

Indeed, the ape has been allowed by white race traitors to take up residence in Australia, provided with every advantage. And still the ape swings from trees like the stupid monkey he is. The feral savages turned a fun, family event in Melbourne into a terrifying ordeal for white families and the police over the weekend.

Excerpt from
Terrified revellers at the annual Moomba festival were forced to take cover as gang members provoked police and bystanders on the corner of Swanston and Flinders streets, near Federation Square, just before 8:00pm.
Onlookers ran for safety and at one stage chairs were used as weapons by the brawlers.
Swanston Street was shut down and trams were stopped for about an hour. Ambulance Victoria said it treated a number of people after the incident.
One man was taken to The Alfred hospital with serious head injuries.
Police said four people were arrested, including one for possessing a taser, but others fled on foot.
A number of robberies and an assault were also reported in the area.
Witnesses said more than 100 people were involved in the fight.
Russ Mulry said several groups of people were chanting at police.
“Chairs were picked up and chairs were thrown from these gangs of people — there was glass being thrown, it was scary,” he said.
“It was disgusting; I am ashamed to be a Melburnian with that going on.”
The story is also being covered by We learn more about the apes and their feral ways.
A primary group within Apex is young African men among living in Melbourne’s outer suburbs. In recent months, police have arrested more than 30 gang members for crimes including robbery, assault and car theft, as part of Taskforce Tense that was set up in November.
The gang’s penchant is for stealing luxury cars — but not to sell on.
“From what we are seeing, it’s largely teenagers targeting high-end cars they want to drive,” Narre Warren police detective Acting Sergeant Reuben McAllister told the Cranbourne Leader earlier this month.
“When they’ve finished with them, they dump them or burn them. Some of them still have not been found.”
The group call their strategy for stealing “missioning”. It involves sneaking into houses in the dead of night, stealing the car keys and driving off with the vehicle.
The filthy savages have nothing to offer Western man but grief. Deport them, my Australian brothers and sisters. Admit that your experiment in multiculturalism and diversity is a FAILURE.

One of the most disgusting things about the contamination of Australia by the apes is shown in the picture below. This is Apex Street, where the government had generously housed the shit skins. When I was growing up, being able to live in a beautiful neighborhood like this was just a distant dream. You can’t say the Australians crowded the stinking apes into a slum.

african housing in australia
Apex Street. Invaders appreciate nothing

Nord by Nord-West: A Report from NPI

via Alternative Right

I traveled with three companions, part of a Pan-European nationalist student group to Richard Spencer’s NPI conference by car from Toronto Canada.

I had not visited our Southern Neighbor since I was a little boy and my father would take me to Buffalo to visit his uncle. On this occasion I observed marked differences between the two countries, some of which I was only conceptually aware of; namely the ubiquitous presence of the military in people's lives, something that is so foregrounded in American society as to be institutionalized in a way Canadians cannot understand in our post-bellum, soft, socialist, multiculturalist dystopia. And, yes, Americans are significantly fatter on average. But there was also a marked religious element pervading their worldview, something altogether transcendent and not always rooted in institutions.

The last salient difference was the prevalence of an especially black underclass, who worked most of the menial jobs, even at SWPL establishments like artisan coffee shops and the like; American blacks also exhibited a pronounced ghetto character. In Toronto, the majority of these types of jobs are done by a medley of South East Asians and brown people, as well as displaced whites, blacks, and students.

We arrived at a rented townhouse, and were greeted by an affable, but simple-looking, tall, middle-aged, blue-eyed man, who was drinking beer and laughing at the end of every sentence. Those who had arrived earlier were out getting food, we were informed. I was ill at ease, and, after awkward introductions, my group decided we would go up the road for dinner as well. Everyone wanted fast-food, but I pressured the group to try an upscale Balkan tapas restaurant instead. The trip down had already meant two fast-food pit stops, and my sense of propriety forbade another one – we are civilized men are we not?

When we got back into the flophouse-turned-frat-house, it was chock full of young men drinking. A stocky guy, introducing himself as Joe Storm, made the introductions, and Hugh jumped up onto the stairs to announce the arrival of the Canadians! Joe wore a khaki-coloured trench coat over a dress shirt and necktie, like spooks in old Hollywood films, and began gregariously chatting away, dropping TRS lingo every which way. I held my back against the wall and was mostly silent, studying rather than engaging, repeatedly rejecting the beer that was offered to me, that was until I decided that it might help calm my nerves.

The world being put to rights with the aid of alcohol
As I made my way through a packed corridor to get to the fridge a big pasty man with a mawkish face dominated by feminine eyelashes stopped to question me.
"Are you Egyptian?" he asked.
"Would I be here if I was?"
"I don’t know. What are you?" he said, sizing me up.
"I'm Italian." I got the beer. Unfortunately it was hoppy, and I hate hoppy beer.
"Where are you from?" I asked.
I walked back to the wall to put my back against it once more. My Serbian friend Brajan, who has a Byzantine-Dinaric look, asked if I wanted to take a walk. I did. When we got back, sleeping arrangements were settled, but the yahoos were up almost all night drinking and babbling making sleep nearly impossible. I flipped though the half dozen channels available on the TV and settled on a Twilight Zone episode, entitled “I Sing the Body Electric,” later discovering that it was the centennial episode written by Ray Bradbury, the acclaimed author of Fahrenheit 451. This produced some synchronistic irony.

It was not until we left on the final day that I discovered that the big pasty guy from California had insisted to Hugh and Rob that both Brajan and I were "not white" and questioned Hugh as to why he brought us. The irony here is that this is essentially a form of book burning. Despite Nordic revisionism, the Ancient cultures of Greece and Rome, which are the birthplaces of Western Civilization, were and are predominantly peopled by a Mediterranean type. Nordics claim that these civilizations fell because of racial miscegenation, and degenerated and declined thereafter. However Plato's Republic, a book that deals specifically with the decline of civilization much closer to the actual period involved, makes no reference to race or ethnicity as a factor. Instead, the morphology of ideological types was described as the principle reason for civilizational decline or rise.

Edward Gibbon, who wrote the monumental The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, relates that Christian ideology and decadence were the prevailing factors. The ability to discern in-group vs. out-group based upon physiognomy may have desirable applications – "one face, one race" – however, it is essentially an illiterate form of discrimination that is pre-lingua in its tribal homogeneity. One of the reasons I was attracted to the New or Alt-Right was the emphasis on Western Civilization as a composite of European peoples, rather than a strictly whiter-than-thou approach.

Hegel may have been the first to discriminate against Latin Nations in his Philosophy of History:
"They are the product of Roman and German blood, and still retain the heterogeneity thence resulting."
He called this the principle of Disharmony within the Latin soul. This Disharmony was the reason why Latin nations had retained Catholicism and not accepted the Protestant Reformation, according to Hegel. Max Weber's thesis on the Protestant work ethic essentially meant that Protestantism aligned its ethos with a bourgeois meritocracy, as opposed to an Aristocratic order founded in Catholicism. This coalesced with the ideas of Francis Galton, who applied Darwinism to social positioning in a free market. Along with Malthus’ theorizing of population growth outstripping resources, this meant that that races could be measured based on economic positioning. With the dominant economic bases at the time being in Northern Europe, principally England, this led to inflating the egos of a rising national consciousness based upon ethnicity.

Racially this was taken up by Arthur de Gobineau, who accredited the fall of Rome to racial admixture – ironically much of that admixture came from German, Celtic, and Slavic slaves. Gobineau's formulation meant shifting the focus of antagonism from an economic to a racial one, the Third Estate was supposedly comprised of inferior Gauls, while the Ancien Regime was supposedly of Frankish blood. Race acted as a “meta-narrative” that could describe and justify all of society’s aliments. This fueled Nazi purity doctrines and simplistic one-size-fits-all explanations for the historical big picture. Essentialism loomed large – burn the books!

Romans managing to decline on their own
without too much help from their menials
The Twilight Zone episode was interesting, though, as it foreshadowed the advancements in cosmetics and biological engineering that could foster a breed of designer babies, all identical with blue eyes and blonde hair, even if the parents were Negroes or Asians. In the episode some children were taken to a robot factory called Facsimile Ltd, in which they could choose the eye color, hair, nose, ears, etc. of their robotic replacement grandmother. If the robotic grandmother did her duty faithfully and the children loved her, she could be rewarded with the gift of life and humanity. Perhaps if I continue writing and advocating for White Nationalism I could become a real Nord or an honorary Aryan – Pinocchio exclaims, "Look, I’m a real…" Ah fuck this!

I awoke early and showered, and met with my group to get breakfast. Hugh, the de facto leader of the group, had to go set up cameras for the conference, and Rob wanted to go to the Mormon Temple to prospect for wives. That left Brajan and I with the day to wander around Capitol Hill, named after the Capitoline Hill of Rome, and dominated as it is by neoclassical and belle epoch architecture, and the ubiquitous Red, White and Blue.

Capitol Hill is magnificent, imperial, and impressive; Congress, the Smithsonian, the sculpture garden, the obelisks, the White House. But it was the Jefferson Memorial, with its palliative beauty and its walls chiseled with his famous words, that made an indelible impression. That poised and restrained Palladian monument, its classical form resting by the boring murky waters of the Tidal Basin like some Roman apparition. Inside the statesmen’s giant statue loomed over the sanctuary, its bronzed form given greater density against the white marble. The crisp air blew through the ionic columns and soporific birdsong intensified the ancient exquisiteness of the open-to-the-elements concept.

The Jefferson Memorial's open door policy.
Here was the truly European statesman, who fought the bankers’ upstart Hamilton over creation of the central bank. Here this Odysseus-like revolutionary of high learning, noble feeling, and many refined talents, subsumed in industriousness and elected purpose, was venerated.

Reading his words and being in that shrine, I felt a kind of peace or the presence of historical greatness. The Jeffersonian democratic ideal, with its small independent farmers, constitutional divisions as a safeguard against tyranny, combined with a willingness to experiment, meant a great deal to me when I was an undergrad. But it was this naïve dawn of American experimentation, this unparalleled optimism that once mirrored my own political and historical understanding, that cast a beatific glow over that post-Enlightenment Renaissance man in that moment. Jefferson had achieved that fine balance between the individual and the collective, the federal and the local, the private citizen and the political. But those elevated Enlightenment principles would come to undermine the very material foundations of the fragile Republic.

The grand principle of "Equality" led to civil war and multiculturalism. "Secularization" led to further fragmentation and civic abstraction. "Federalism" became tyranny, while the tone of moral superiority that tied all this together became a rationalization of empire – as Kipling wrote, of the "White Man’s Burden" in his poem about American involvement in the Philippines. Those inherent tensions between the principle of equality and the individual would create a new synthesis of the individual, wholly material and atomized as de Tocqueville noted – ruled by rational selfishness and economics.

Pressing onwards from Jefferson, we came, in the same way that America came, to the monuments to FDR and his wife Eleanor. The sentiments inscribed on the walls of their memorial became more specious, more abstracted and idealized, and further removed from the material facts of government and historical movement.

FDR was an appeaser of economic interests. Rather than abolish the Fed, which had caused the Great Depression by pursuing a policy of inflation before abruptly cutting back the money supply, Roosevelt left the banking system unchanged, and instead borrowed from those same bankers to fund his New Deal, leading enviably as it did to the Military Industrial Complex and the Cold War. Or, as Ezra Pound pointed out:
"There is no reason the Federal Reserve Board shd. be a private instrument of the executive… That effectively bitches the Jeffersonian system. Destroys balance between execut. Judic. and legislature." 
Then we moved on to MLK Jr. Walking through Washington DC, if you choose your direction "correctly," can serve as a progressive narrative: all men being self-evidently equal leading to the abolition of ignorance and intolerance, and slavery and war, and then out of this mountain of despair a stone of hope – an ideological journey that weaves through and in-between the pillars of Empire and power.

Apparently the sculptor
gave up half-way through
In such a journey you get a sense of two principally conflicting elements converging as the essence of Americanism: high moral grounding to advance sordid political aims.

This concoction was identified by Francis Parker Yockey as "the technic of cant" first developed by the Anglo-Jewish alliance of the British Empire. Cant, of course, is the expression or repetition of conventional or trite opinions or sentiments, especially the insincere use of pious words. Our most "beloved" politicians – Trudeau and Obama, for example – are experts in cant, inspiring "hope" in the masses through this usage of cant.

The American narrative is strong and alluring, and everywhere in Washington the symbols of empire clash with egalitarian principles; the imperial eagle, the fasces, and neoclassical architecture combine to reconstruct a new Rome. The Lincoln Memorial was still to come, and the narrative of American equality finds its medium with Abraham the Emancipator (and war monger) resting his arms upon the fasces. "I am large, I contain multitudes, I am the man," this monument to federalism seems to say. These liberal ideals seem prescient, but beyond that and beneath them lies something else as Yockey observed, "The world of violence, of cunning, of sin, while maintaining before itself the attitude of selfless morality."


When we arrived at the NPI conference on the eighth-floor rotunda of the federal government’s Ronald Reagan Building, I had not eaten since early noon and was famished running solely on coffee and cigarettes, two vices that I normally control.

Almost as soon as we entered the room, a reporter with an obviously Jewish name from a major news magazine pounced upon us, asking if we would like to be interviewed. At first I said sure, but when the line of questioning became increasingly probing and personal I got uncomfortable and declined. That's when Hugh jumped in saying, "I'll do it." I listened.

Emboldened by my comrade's explanations I began to offer my own explanations. I described the power law of the Pareto efficiency as applied to global economics and the shifting of power from the West to the Rest. "A zero-sum game?" quizzed our interlocutor. "Yes," I said, and added that Donald Trump, with his anti-immigrant and anti-China rhetoric, represents the resentment of Western people who have been sold out by their own profit-driven corporations. Even if he becomes a tyrant as the liberal media portray him, I suggested that this was a necessary historical movement, springing from the decadence of democracy. "After all, Plato said that democracy inevitably leads to tyranny."

I conceded that Trump's pro-military and pro-police rhetoric is scary in an era of the total security state, but that maybe America deserves a tyrant. But, I said, it's not about race, just because the media likes to portray Trump and his supporters as racists. It’s much more about the cyclical law of decay.

Briefly I talked about how American blacks have always represented an historical fissure in American identity, which was supposed to be based on a European melting pot idea. The existence of Blacks "in the mix" pushed the principles of America's founding fathers too fare from the concrete to the abstract – out of necessity! Jews were part of that too, I said, surmising that the journalist, as suggested by his name, employment, and demeanor was "of that persuasion."
"One of your people Zangwill wrote the melting pot play."
"One of my people?" he quizzed in mock coyness.
"Yeh, a Jew."
"Whoa, whoa, whoa," said Hugh, "How do you know he's a Jew?"
"His name tag," I said gesturing to his press pass.
"I am Jewish," he said.
"See," I said to Hugh.
"How do you feel about the Jews?" he asked me.
I put on my broadest smile and said, "Lovely people, the best."
"I can’t tell if you’re being honest," he said.
I laughed. "How come you don't cover AIPAC this way?"
"We do cover AIPAC. You should read us."
Hugh tried to break this off by steering the reporter towards Professor Kevin MacDonald.
"What do you consider yourself?" I asked.
"I’m an American," the journalist said.
"You can’t be anything other than what you are," I said.
"Anyways," he said, sensing essentialism creeping in, "it was Aristotle who said that thing about democracy and tyranny."
"Really?" said Hugh.
"Yes, it was in the Nicomachean Ethics."
"Doesn’t matter," I said. "Spengler said it too," still smiling.
I was feeling slightly ungrounded and Brajan shook my hand, saying, "That was awesome." I got food, mashed potatoes and roast beef, but I did not even taste it, as I stood chatting at a table with an old white guy with a confederate flag tie and his younger Filipino wife. All the waiting staff were Black and many of us contemplated, like Kerouac had, what was going on inside their heads.

Last minute advertising
for the Conference
Hugh asked me to work one of the recording cameras for the event, which is how I got the free ticket and ride. The proceedings began with Richard Spencer introducing the event and then Ramzpaul gave a slideshow presentation. Ramzpaul's presentation was part comedy and part pep talk and went on a little long, with a video presentation at the end about not wasting your life, directed at the many young people in attendance.

Next was Professor MacDonald, whose talk was largely focused on Donald Trump, followed by Spencer, who delivered an oration on the same subject. Nothing particularly salient emerged from the talking points, just a general consensus that Trump's stance on immigration was a movement in the Alt-Right’s direction and that identity matters.

That night, out at a bar, a bunch of us were drinking. At some point Hugh introduced me to a fellow Canadian, a lawyer from British Columbia. I asked him if he was Irish, but then he began wailing away about how he hated the Irish. I told him I liked the Irish. He was saying how he supported the Ulster Ascendency and how the IRA were "a bunch of sucks."
"Yea man, how dare they want their own country," I said mockingly, "I mean the Potato Famine was the planned genocide of one third of their population because of English landowners. What a bunch of fucking sucks."
When we went outside to smoke, the group of guys fell silent. The Anglo lawyer eyed me suspiciously. "You can talk about me to my face. It’s OK," I said. They stood around peevishly. Then I went into a sarcastic monologue about how Rome fell due to miscegenation and that we were inferior stock and so on. The lawyer left and Joe Storm confided in me that he was quarter Sicilian and suggested I should introduce myself to the others as Alex Fontana.

They all left and I stood around, smoking my last 'friend' down to the filter. Some black guy who had been listening and trying to sell a scrappy newspaper came up to me.
"You Italian, man?" he asked in ghetto patois.
"I love Italians, man. Fuck those guys. They're pussies," he said, giving me a fist bump. "Wanna buy this paper, man?"

Bill & Synagogue Ogle the Prospect of Hillary Including Another "Marginal" on Supreme Court

via Majority Rights

Bill Clinton presenting his usual stump on behalf
of Hillary to a synagogue audience in Illinois
The “inclusive, inclusive, inclusive” bit was frightening in the 1990s, when he was running for President, because “inclusive” can be a good concept when applied within a legitimate classification; and at the time there was more chance that it could have been honestly mistaken as if that’s what he meant; and not heard as what he actually means, which is the Jewish “inclusive” - a hyper-liberal inclusiveness that would include everybody [and he does emphasize everybody] - people formerly from without of a racial classification and formerly outside of the nation. This paradoxical “inclusiveness” would ultimately dissolve the classification, the nation, the people, the tribe altogether - viz., it would dissolve the very thing to be included-in.

It would dissolved to a vague catch-all category of undifferentiated gentile others; while one tribe would maintain its distinction, of course.

In 2016 it sounds less frightening than totally absurd given the floods of immigration into The U.S. and Europe. This audience in the synagogue reacts only with applause either because they are completely blind to the fact that they are being herded, thinking that they can maintain their Jewish sanctioned activist distinctions indefinitely, or because they are in on the joke.

Their biggest applause are reserved for when Bill says that what he is most proud of is that Hillary distinguishes herself from the other candidates by more fervently denouncing prejudice against Muslim Americans (following the Noachide laws apparently being good enough to qualify people for inclusion as Americans). Bill concludes by rubbing his hands together with the audience over the prospect (given Scalia’s death) of Hillary putting through another “Justice” just as good as the one that he put on the Court.

Bill literally wept before America, so moved as he was when his nominee had ascended to The Supreme Court.

Among Chief Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s first statements was to maintain her long standing conviction as a “civil rights” advocate that nobody should be discriminated against on the basis of immutable characteristics.

European peoples, the time for being alarmed or despairing over this has long since passed. The neo-liberal complicity with the Jewish notion of “including ‘marginals” is, as I have said in several places, a paradoxical notion of “inclusion” that they have put together with an inverted notion of “marginals” - a notion of “marginals” by which they mean not marginals, as that would imply those who are just within our boundaries but being pushed to the side and ultimately outside - they mean rather taking in those from without.

With the flooding incursion of migrants and the chutzpah of this inclusion rhetoric absurdly unabated, it is time to see all of this for what it is and to organize as Whites/Native Europeans - maintaining our important distinctions and bounds as they provide accountability and serve our human ecologies, sure; but recognizing that we must coordinate our defense with overall organization as European peoples.

We are under attack for that reason in essence, no matter where or what we might take recourse to in lieu of defending ourselves on that basis. Wherever we are, we are in need of a union, unions and coordination of defense based on our most precious and essential bond - that is our DNA.

Europeans can no longer afford to tarry uncritically with those who would proceed with the modernist bastard child that is universal principles and rights, nor cater to those who would attempt to “save us” with neo-traditional re-organizations under the anachronistic rubric and poison rule structures of “Christendom.”

These aren’t surrogates for our DNA and biology - in lieu of that rather, they are midwives to the birthing of pan-mixia and our genocide.
Picture a cartoon illustration here that I had to take down due to EU law. Its title reads “Jews, Musilims, Christians.” Beneath that title it shows the identical happy self hand clasping merchant three times - their only being dressed differently and having slightly different skin tone - the obvious implication being that there is no important difference. There is a sarcastic sub-title: “know the difference, it could save your nation” and a conclusive line, “Semitic Religion, not even once.” Which is the same as saying, Abrahamic religion, not even once.
The time has also passed to be surprised or despair at how the all too kosher Merkel will act quite similarly with regard to our borders on the European end, and how the Noachide sheep will react to those who would oppose her - marking little difference between Europeans in America or here in Europe, as they continue to operate under the same neo-liberal rule structures and Noachide law. The time is now to wrest and forge our rule structure anew in organization and activism of the White Class.

Jewish Terrorism in America: The Weather Underground

via The Traitor Within

Wikipedia tells this:

"The Weather Underground Organization, commonly known as the Weather Underground, was an American radical left-wing organization... The group became known colloquially as the Weathermen.
Weatherman organized in 1969 as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society... Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the overthrow of the U.S. government. 
With revolutionary positions characterized by black power and opposition to the Vietnam War, the group conducted a campaign of bombings through the mid-1970s and took part in actions such as the jailbreak of Dr. Timothy Leary. 
The 'Days of Rage,' their first public demonstration on October 8, 1969, was a riot in Chicago timed to coincide with the trial of the Chicago Seven. 
In 1970 the group issued a 'Declaration of a State of War' against the United States government... The bombing campaign mostly targeted government buildings, along with several banks... 
Years after the dissolution of Weatherman, former members Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert joined the Black Liberation Army in robbing a Brink's armored car in 1981, which resulted in the deaths of three people... 
'You Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows' was the title of a position paper that they distributed at an SDS convention in Chicago on June 18, 1969. This founding document called for a 'white fighting force' to be allied with the 'Black Liberation Movement' and other radical movements to achieve 'the destruction of U.S. imperialism and achieve a classless world: world communism'."
Here's what Doug McAdam, now a distinguished professor, had to say about the Weathermen:

“I remember going to the last... it was the Weathermen or the Weather Underground, it was the last above ground convention. And I remember sitting in a room and the question that was debated was 'was it or was it not the duty of every good revolutionary TO KILL ALL NEWBORN WHITE BABIES?'...

The logic being through no fault of their own these white kids are going to grow up to be part of an oppressive racial establishment internationally and so, really, your duty is to kill newborn white babies.

And I remember one guy tentatively and apologetically suggesting that ‘that seemed contradictory to the larger humanitarian aims of the movement’ and being kind of booed down.”

The Whitelawtowers website tells us this:

"Weatherman, known colloquially as the Weathermen and later the Weather Underground Organization, was a Jewish-led, neo-Marxist domestic terrorist group in the United States... 
Despite the perception of the Weathermen as being an organization of disaffected white youths, five of the seven prominent leaders mentioned by the website Jewish Achievement are, in fact, Jewish. Mark Rudd, Bernardine Dohrn, Naomi Jaffe, David Gilbert, and Laura Whitehorn are specifically mentioned."

A little bit of history most of us know nothing of.

At least, most of us will have known nothing of the Jewish involvement, preferring, in an age of furious PC brainwash, the sanitised feel of 'an organization of disaffected white youths.'
Weather Underground

In Defense of Germany’s National Democratic Party

via Counter-Currents

Lady Michèle Renouf

Counter-Currents Editor’s Note: Michèle Renouf delivered this speech at a demonstration on February 27, 2016 opposite the German Embassy in London, in defense of the National Democratic Party (NPD). The other speakers were Peter Rushton, Max Musson of Western Spring, Mike Whitby of British Resistance, Kevin Layzell, John Leech, a speaker from the National Action, and Richard Edmonds. Jez Turner of the London Forum was the Master of Ceremonies and organizer of the demonstration. The title is editorial.

German Embassy diplomats, Ladies and Gentlemen here today and viewing on the worldwide internet, the question of the day is: Why in the world does Germany need the N.P.D.?

I keenly answer, by echoing the NPD’s 3 REASONS, in their own words:
LMR and AM at Embassy

1. Democracy

As we understand it, is meant to offer citizens political choices.
The existence of the NPD duly alerts Germans (and likewise other European countries) that none uphold democracy while ever nationalist parties are media-sidelined, suffer mendacious reportage without a just redress; are criminally infiltrated in order to entrap, sabotage, and misrepresent their policies; and remain under threat of being banned.

To quote from the NPD’s website:

An open political process and a legally protected process of political opinion-forming (the indispensable foundation of a free democratic order) is threatened by the impending monopolization of politics, due to the lust for power of well-organized interest groups.

This is already well under way, though covered up or glossed over by politically biased coverage in the public media of the mass immigration and consequent conflict in Germany – in a ubiquitous process of undermining parliamentary democracy, with Chancellor Merkel transforming Germany into a multiethnic state through the lowering of German borders without even a Cabinet decision, let alone a vote in Parliament. In fact it is not the policy of Merkel’s critics that is “extremist,” but government policy itself that is “extremist.”


The NPD works to alert the German people (and likewise other nations) that they have no SOVEREIGNTY under the European Union.

To quote from the NPD website:

“In several places in Germany’s constitution – the “Basic Law” – there is mention of the concept of the German people. The very legitimacy of state power derives from this concept of a German people, with an inherent German ethnicity.

Even a former Constitutional Court judge Udo di Fabio recently pointed out that the government could not go ahead and create a new German people via unlimited immigration, as in that case state power would no longer derive legitimacy from the bottom up – government would be taking on itself the right to alter the size and composition of the nation state, in what a well-known constitutional lawyer Josef Isensee in 1999 (addressing the issue of dual citizenship) called a “constitutional coup from above”) — an unidentified “above” governance, at that!


3. National Identity

A country denied its sovereignty is also thereby denied its national right to its racial identity. To quote from the NPD website, in a letter to German police and armed forces from NPD party chairman Frank Franz (Herr Franz, an able and respectable spokesman, with whom I have had the pleasure of meeting and discussing these issues firsthand), said:

The police and armed forces fulfil an essential task of great importance in today’s society. Their tasks face drastic transformation in the foreseeable future. A new development is potentially shattering the stability of our community: namely the toleration of a gigantic abuse of our asylum law, which can destroy irretrievably that character of Germany’s population, society and culture. The mass occupation via “asylum” and the risk of infiltration by radical jihadists presents problems which inevitably leave their mark on the everyday work of the police and army.

Frank Franz wrote:

This “population exchange” affects us all, as does the termination of our independent statehood by the EU integration process which is intrinsically hostile to sovereignty. Those in government service should be attentive when transitory political developments threaten the fundamentals of the State’s constitution.

[quoting from the Basic Law] Article 20 para 2: All state authority emanates from the people. Articles 56 and 64: the President, Chancellor and Ministers undertake on oath to act “for the benefit of the German people.”

The very integrity and identity of that German People is at stake due to the diminishing of national self-determination and the alienation of the public.

The manner in which political criticism is made into a suspicious activity, represents a violation of human dignity and a sacrifice of free expression.

One must raise the question: to what extent does E.U. asylum policy contravene the stipulations of the Basic Law concerning “the benefit of the German people”? Has it indeed contravened this already?

As there has so far been no comparable historical experience, … this is probably the first time in the history of the Federal Republic that it is conceivable for public servants to have to bear in mind Article 20 Para 4 of the Basic Law, which states that: “if no other remedy is possible, Germans have the right to resist against anyone who seeks to abolish the constitutional order.”

As to the ongoing court-case to ban the NPD, the website informs that:

NPD’s lawyer Peter Richter will argue at outset of proceedings on March 1st that the case for banning the party is so tainted by the activities of German spy agencies that there is no legitimate case to be made against the NPD.
After the failure of a similar banning process 12 years ago — ruled unconstitutional because of the extent of German state spying operations against the party and the role of highly placed state agents — this time the state agencies have claimed that they closed down all agents operating above a certain level in the party.

But there is absolutely no guarantee that they have complied with this order. The NPD is very dubious about a process that involves legal submissions “in camera.”

The party will therefore attempt to have the case struck out on legal and constitutional grounds, but is also prepared if necessary to address each of the documents brought in evidence by the state and bring its own motions to introduce defence evidence.

Of course, as I have witnessed first hand in courtrooms in Germany, one is reminded of the ubiquitous film Dinner for One, since all Germans laugh to see it screening as a standing joke on their TVs every New Years’. The matriarchal character — like the courtroom judges when asked by lawyers if evidential exhibits may be presented in defense of their “opinion crime” clients — she proclaims “No! It is to be the same procedure every year!”!!

In Sum

The NPD does vital work in alerting the Germans — and likewise the world — that NATO and its military bases in all our countries, act not as a deterrent, but makes us targets for Zionist-lead America’s war-mongering which has created all these mutually undesired mass migrations of peoples from other lands to Europe — an unnatural migration which will bring neither peoples their necessary human sense of “ancestral home.” Humans, as with homing pigeons and other creatures on our planet, have a natural instinct for, and comforting group identity with, their ancestral “homeland.” No good can come of denying us what Natural provides in our best group interests.

On today’s news we hear Chancellor Merkel admit that she is “uncertain where the registered migrants are”. . . much less all the unregistered millions she has unilaterally welcomed, and wishes to invite in their tens of millions into Germany. I have heard from ordinary German citizens, overwhelmed by the colossal migrant invasion upon their towns and villages, that they feel betrayed and abused by Merkel’s tyrannical imposition of her democratic-disdaining, nation-changing policy. Thank goodness that we have the NPD to alert us to the full circumstances and consequences of this devastating onslaught on our Nature.

Long live the NPD for all our sakes in Europe!

"Citizen Super PAC" Releases Video Rehabilitating Hitler and Goebbels

via National-Socialist Worldview

Why do I say that? Because it is not going to hurt Trump. The people who already support Trump -- which is now the majority of Republicans -- will find this video to be an attack on themselves as much as an attack on Trump. If Trump behaves true to form, he will not do what most politicians do when attacked in this way: he will not plead for understanding that he is not Hitler.

Therefore, Hitler and Goebbels are more likely to gain positive regard by the comparison, than Trump is to be harmed by it. On some level, to some degree, many people already admire Hitler anyway.

Do Hitler and Trump really have anything in common? Yes, they do. A few things, but they are not bad things. Trump and Hitler are both nationalists who champion the interests of ordinary people against plutocracy, and they both speak extemporaneously, and have to deal with organized disruption of their rallies by leftist troublemakers. Trump also talks about reconciliation among Americans for the good of the country, which, most Americans surely have no idea, was also a major theme with Hitler.

Hitler is not, however, the premier example of such a populist, anti-plutocratic leader. They existed also in the ancient world. The brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus are an example from the Roman Republic, and Solon is an example from ancient Greece. 

One thing that is subtly misrepresented in the video, is when Hitler is shown referring to "the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe." The word rendered as "annihilation" is Vernichtung. It is tempting, for etymological reasons, to render Vernichtung as "annihilation," but that is not how the word was generally used. The practical meaning of Vernichtung in pre-1945 German was really quite vague. It could mean defeat or ruin. Consequently this much quoted expression from Hitler's January 1939 speech contributes absolutely nothing toward a proof of the so-called Holocaust.

An Interview with Ricardo Duchesne, Part 2

via Right On

Part 1

We have to start thinking about creating our own clubs, associations, and spaces to protect ourselves, become a pressure group, and show them that we are united as self-assured collectivities. There is nothing edgy or rebellious about Leftists today; they are conformist, devious, confused, and emotionally infantile, but they have institutional backing, and if we act as isolated individuals they can do great damage, which gives them a lot of pleasure.

As a university professor, what do you make of the current trends on campuses like Mizzou and others toward “safe spaces” and the marginalization of Europeans in favor of people of color and minority groups? Do you see it in your university, and can you share any personal experiences?

I am lucky to teach at a university in which Eurocanadians constitute a strong majority and minorities consist almost entirely of international students, even though these foreign students utilize their entry into Canadian universities as a direct path to citizenship. The call for “safe spaces” is yet another aggressive act by Leftists in a long line of such acts going back to the ’60s. You would think that having achieved total control over the university, with almost a 100 per cent leftist professorate, with administrators who have made the diversification of campuses their primary goals, the students would be satiated by now. But don’t expect any satisfaction anytime soon, and the call for safe spaces may be the most aggressive signal yet of what the ultimate goal is: to create universities with a curriculum that is thoroughly diverse, and in which Whites are just one more minority group, regardless of the ethnic composition of the city where the university is located, and regardless of the pedagogical consequences. They claim that a “safe place” is needed because Blacks, and other minorities, are not safe in an environment they deem to be majority White; affirmative action may have brought Blacks into the campus, but it has not made them safe. The word “safe” is a manipulative code intended to create the impression that others, Whites, are being aggressive against them and have power over them in the university at large, and that they are just asking for a small space to feel safe, as poor innocent children, but in reality the intention is to create spaces in which Whites will not be allowed to enter, and in which Black students and other minorities will set the terms, and will eventually create a different educational environment that allows them certain privileges Whites are excluded from. Can you imagine Whites asking for safe places from Blacks, or from the pervasive presence of Leftist professors and administrators pushing diversity and teaching about the ills of slavery and European imperialism? It is impossible to conceive this.

But why are extra spaces needed for minorities apart from the general Cultural Marxist space across the pro-diversity university? Well, if you follow the egalitarian logic, which started in the student protests of the 1960s, then there is no way to argue against this request by minorities, since the reality is that Whites are still the majority on many university campuses, have an unequal presence, and the curriculum, the authors, and the disciplines themselves are still heavily White in origins and authorship. Why is it that when you open a textbook on the history of philosophy most of the philosophers are European? Why is it that when they offer brief histories of the development of biological ideas, physics, mathematics, technologies, of the presidents of the United States, of the great men in modern science, they are mostly White? How can a Black person feel safe when an entire classroom continually focuses on White thinkers when it is discussing existentialism, phenomenology, deconstruction, and analytical thought? Are not the disciplines of physics, chemistry, and even the social sciences creations of Whites, and, therefore, representative of the ways of thinking of Whites? Or, are Whites claiming that they can represent Blacks in their philosophies? And, if these philosophies and political theories by Aristotle, Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, Machiavelli, Habermas, Rorty, and Rousseau, are not “Black”, can they not be seen as efforts by Whites to “discipline”’ Blacks to think and act White? And if Blacks are less successful academically in these disciplines, why is that? Is this not another instance of White privilege and the imposition of White standards upon Blacks?

It is not surprising that the last few years have seen a lot of talk about “White supremacy” and that much of this talk in academia has been about the supremacy of Whites in the curriculum. Critics charge that Whites cannot possibly be accused of supremacism, since this would entail rules and laws excluding minorities from certain activities and universities, affording Whites certain special rights and so on; but that the ones trying to have supremacy are those Blacks who are calling for special rules of entry, separate standards, and exclusive spaces on racial grounds not afforded to Whites. But these critics can’t answer why Whites are still privileged in their dominance of the curriculum and in their continuing majority presence on most campuses. Ultimately, there is no way to counter the logic of egalitarianism, which will gather ever more momentum against Whites as the racial demographic landscape increasingly tilts in favor of non-Whites. Naïve liberal Whites have no clue what is coming their way, though, amazingly, many of them will welcome their complete degradation.

The best countermeasure is for European-Americans and Canadians not to oppose the principle driving Blacks and minorities to seek safe places; instead they should seek their own safe places against the general Cultural Marxist space, from which position they can then produce arguments against many of the claims of minorities and the university personnel at large, while supporting each other as an ethnic collective group. As I started answering, I am lucky to teach at UNB; while I have been opposed in ways obligating me to express my dissenting views in a less open manner, I would not have survived in most other Canadian universities where you have active SJWs and large minorities. This is why we have to start thinking about creating our own clubs, associations, and spaces to protect ourselves, become a pressure group, and show them that we are united as self-assured collectivities. There is nothing edgy or rebellious about Leftists today; they are conformist, devious, confused, and emotionally infantile, but they have institutional backing, and if we act as isolated individuals they can do great damage, which gives them a lot of pleasure, watching family men, independent thinkers, and hardworking and dedicated individuals go down.

European resistance to the great replacement has come in many forms from the Central European nations like Hungary and Poland, to the youth-led identitarian movement. Do you think something similar to the identitarian movement could come about in Canada, or do you think Canadians of European descent are too disconnected from their European roots?

I know of two groups in Canada consisting of young men who meet and discuss issues, read books together, and sometimes engage in political activism. I would not call these groups identitarian, however. One can’t think of the identitarian movements in Europe without thinking about the cultures from which they emerged: Austria, Germany, and France, which are national cultures, and these identitarian movements, while not nationalist in the old sense, and despite their wider sense of being rooted in Europe at large, are rooted in these national cultures, drawing their inspiration from their respective nation’s history and identity against diversification. I prefer to use the term “Eurocanadian” rather than “White” in order to bring up both the cultural and racial side of the founding peoples of Canada, the English-speaking peoples (the British, Irish, and Scottish) and the French-speaking Quebecois, and of the subsequent arrival of Europeans, Germans, Scandinavians, Eastern Europeans, Italians, and Greeks. But I must admit that current Eurocanadians are disconnected or do not identify themselves as Europeans, so when it comes to current politics, rather than historical explanations, say, about the role of the founding Europeans, the Anglo and French in particular, in the making of Canada, it may well be more effective to use the term White Canadians. I have not thought about this much, but now that you ask, and notwithstanding my own misgivings about using the term White, which tends to be too focused on race as the identifying trait, I think Greg Johnson is correct that as we try to identify ourselves in the face of ever larger numbers of aggressive non-Whites, in order to differentiate ourselves we will realize, we Canadians, Americans, and even the more cohesive Anglo-Australians, that the one thing we do have in common is that we are White. And we will realize this as we sense, hear, and face up to the actions of the elites and non-Whites against us for being White, not for having an ancestry in some European country, but for being members of a “White supremacist” group.

We don’t hear much about radical Islam in Canada. Is the Islamist threat in Canada being swept under the rug for political correctness, or does Canada simply have less of a problem with Islamists? If the latter is true, why do you think that is?

The Islamic threat is greatest in England, France, and Germany, countries with the highest Muslim populations, excluding Russia. In Germany alone, the Muslim population surged from 4.8 million in 2010 to 6 million by the end of the summer of 2015. For me, the threat is not terrorism per se, but the mere presence of Muslims with a way of life, religion, and ethnicity that is antithetical to European culture. Ultimately, I view the Muslim phenomenon within the larger problem of mass immigration to Western nations; I would rather live in a nation populated by Europeans, even if there was terrorism, though this would be a problem  of course, rather than an Asianized or Africanized European nation without terrorism. Muslims, as of 2011, represents 3.2 percent of the Canadian population, and are expected to increase to 6.6 percent by 2030, which is a sizable number, but the biggest demographic threat to Canada comes from Asian immigration, which, as of 2011, comprises 15.3 percent of the population. The vast majority of Asians are Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, and Pakistanis. Cities and towns in Canada, Vancouver, Richmond, Markham, Brampton, and others have been thoroughly populated by Asians, and this is just the beginning if trends continue…all the indications point towards the marginalization of Eurocanadians within a few decades. This demographic replacement is the biggest threat. The threat of terrorism, and the overt manner in which Muslims affirm their identity, is important to highlight as a way of initiating emotional energy against this larger replacement. Criticism of immigration has come mainly by way of apprehensions about Islamic aggression. The downside of these apprehensions is that there are powerful elites out there manipulating Europeans into believing that we are at war with Islam, which is the main line of criticism pushed by the same mainstream conservatives who want mass immigration, cheap labor, global shopping malls, real estate development, and a generic humanity without national identity other than a few folksy symbols transmitted through ads and consumer items. We are not at war with Islam, and we should stop trying to export Western values into the Near East, or anywhere else; Muslims in their own homelands have as much reason as we do to seek national and ethnic self-determination, as they see it. Our energy should be pivoted around the principle that European peoples also have a right to ethno-national self-determination.

You’ve written several critical essays on the European New Right, the school of thought founded by Alain de Benoist and his GRECE think tank. In brief, what is your appraisal of the New Right? Has it influenced you in any way?

The European New Right, along with American paleoconservatism, was instrumental in my ability to move out of the mainstream Right, which I inhabited from about 2000 to 2010. I never felt fully comfortable in the mainstream Right, though I supported the Iraq War until about 2006. Intellectually, Nietzsche, more so than any contemporary mainstream conservative, drove me out of the Left, apart from my admiration for Western civilization. After publishing Uniqueness in 2011, I started visiting Alt-Right blogs and Webzines, and it was then that I realized that race was no less important to the West’s historical identity than culture. Reading ENR writers, mainly by way of Counter-Currents, taught me that moving further to the Right did not entail moving further away from socialist concerns about the well-being of one’s people, but in fact entailed a rejection of mainstream Right ideas about globalization, American “exceptionalism,” and the universalist pretensions of civic nationalism, that is, ideas which had originated in a Left obsessed with the welfare of Third World peoples, and which was completely dismissive of the White working classes. The “neither Right nor Left” ENR ideas were quite important in this respect.

But I could never agree with the animosity of the ENR towards Western civilization. The ENR, it soon became apparent to me, had formulated its key ideas in reaction to a historical reality that was no longer relevant, namely the Cold War, and the imposition upon Europe of the internationalist ideologies of American liberalism and Soviet Communism. The ENR grew as a reaction against this imposition in defence of European cultural autonomy, in the course of which it assimilated Leftist ideas about multiculturalism. I understand that some current ENR writers are fully aware of the existential threat that mass immigration poses and are addressing it, but they still frame their thinking about this issue in terms of the globalist imperatives of American capitalism, against which they hold up the traditional values of all peoples. But what matters to me is the fate of European peoples, and there is no way around the historical reality that rationalism, individualism, and universalism are intrinsic traits of the West, which should not be confounded with the way Cultural Marxists have atrophied and manipulated these traits to push anti-Western policies. The ENR has accepted elements of the Leftist critique of the West in defence of multicultural traditionalism. I think it is possible to have an aristocratic appreciation of these traits, which is how Spengler thought about it, appreciating the Faustian drive of Europeans, which includes the drive for rationalization, without endorsing liberalism in its current form, though I am sympathetic to classical liberalism.

How has your thought evolved since you published The Uniqueness of Western Civilization in 2011?

I was always aware at an instinctive level that race was important, but only after Uniqueness was published did I really start reading about this topic in light of my concerns about mass immigration. The key change was that I discovered Alt-Right writings and thinkers. One reason I don’t trust the Left, and would not be willing to incorporate key ideas from this side the way Benoist and Dugin have, is that the Left is totally opposed to European racial identity. The Left has been waging a war against the White race for decades, and the mainstream Right has agreed with the Left that it is wrong for Whites to affirm their racial identity, but understandable for non-Whites to affirm theirs. This is the biggest double standard. Unlike Benoist, who uses multiculturalism to argue against human rights, I would prefer to use multiculturalism to argue that we should all have the same collective right to affirm our cultural and racial identities; and if affirming Gallic identity means re-asserting the territorial rights of the Gallic French against Islamic and African multiculturalism in France, then I would agree with this. It is very simple, the Left/Right establishment wants European identity to become a personal choice in the face of the ever growing affirmation by non-Whites of their collective identity right inside Europe, which is leading to the destruction of Europeans. So, either Europeans do the same, or they are gone.

Arktos will soon be publishing a new book by you, Faustian Man in an Age of Multiculturalism. Can you give us a brief overview of what the book will be about?

The book starts with the importance of race in the historical identification of Western civilization from prehistoric to contemporary times. Rise and Decline cycles have been a natural phenomenon in the history of cultures, but never has a decline come along through the existence of a hostile elite breaking up the racial identity of a people, which would mean permanent decline and extinction. The book looks at the evolution of a European “sub-race” (within the Caucasian race) on the continent of Europe after Homo sapiens arrived some 45,000 years ago, and how this sub-race evolved over the course of the Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic periods. Chapter 3 examines how the teaching of Western civilization has been replaced by multicultural histories aimed at downplaying Western achievements, demonizing Western actions, elevating the achievements of non-Western peoples, and claiming that the rise of modern science, for example, was a “global” affair in which all the peoples of the world played an equal role, demonstrating how all of this revisionism is being done in violation of the most basic protocols of scholarly evidence and standards. Chapter 4 makes a case for the importance of Spengler’s concept of a Faustian soul for the understanding of Western creativity, and the last chapter uses the Faustian idea as part of an effort to show that almost all the explorers in history were European, and that the driving motivation for European exploration was Faustian rather than economic.