Mar 21, 2016

Free Software and Nationalism

via Right On

Making the right decisions concerning open source, and applying open source wisely, can be an entry point to fruitful contacts with anti-globalists around the world.

Nationalism is alive and growing in many forms, and as a consequence of that growth we must consider strategic choices, much as other major movements and organizations do. Our strategic choices mainly pertain to organisation and methodology, and no reason exists to try to change this or to discuss the topic of technology for technology’s sake, but one exception is evident: we need to choose a particular type of technology, whose case I will argue.

The technology of open source is, at present and in principle, a complete platform, amenable to usage in nearly all combinations and for all requirements, and which satisfies the highest requirements for functionality. The idea of open source is software which is in itself free of cost and transparent with regard to its source code and documentation, and whose originator’s business model is consultation regarding the software itself and its applications.

With open source, we can achieve control over our destiny in a fundamentally different way and on a higher plane. The media and other inimical organisations have already built their platforms, but we don’t have to copy them. On the contrary, we can learn from their mistakes and do better. Open source requires a higher level of competence for its development and use, but it is exactly that competence which we need and must seek out. Such competence and other high-level faculties are key to rolling back the enemy. Sheer necessity also drives us: no power transfer in history has occurred with compliance or consent of the entity being displaced. Power transfers happen because a more competent adversary makes sure to carry it out.

Furthermore, open source technology affords us control over our integrity and confidentiality. A whole subculture within the enemy’s ranks makes both a business case and a living out of persecuting individuals among those of us who hold unpalatable political opinions. It is hard to have faith in the willingness of large, software-based companies such as Microsoft, Google, Apple, or Facebook to truly oppose the enemy on an institutional level. When he comes calling for information about troublesome political malcontents, they are more than willing to comply, even offering information which has no connection to any sort of criminal activity.
But open source software for cryptography and security is also open with respect to its source code and functionality, and hence it can be tested by a collective of knowledgeable enthusiasts the world over. We can close and lock the door to the enemy in a completely different and robust way with open source of this variety, and the enemy can call on Microsoft or AT&T for assistance to no avail.

There is nothing as much fun as finding faults in what others have created, and this motivation gives open source great leverage in the process of bug correction and testing, providing a sort of leverage with which Microsoft, IBM, or anyone else can never contend when they assign their salaried workers to accomplish this. For those who are interested, Eric S Raymond’s book, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, is recommended reading.

Moreover, we can start up a new battlefront altogether – the front on which the war for our jobs and our wealth throughout all of Europe and the Occident is being fought. Jobs and wealth follow from competence, and a militant determination to obtain and develop that competence locally and in conflict with national and transnational organisations across the world. Part of what the enemy does to alienate and atomise us using globalisation as a weapon is to separate us from such important knowledge and skills. Their ultimate purpose is to turn us all into disposable and replaceable cogs in a machine, as identical to one another as lumps of sugar, and under the constant threat of being victimised by offshoring and outsourcing. Open source gives us the option to reserve such skills for our own local communities, in particular software competence, so as to prevent large-scale job transfers out of the Occident which can take place with the stroke of a pen in a boardroom. Software competence is critical toward this end and is strategically important for our future. It would also be a wise idea for nationalists to be the ones to lead the struggle to keep our jobs here, in our own lands. We can expect greater and wider support for this effort as a tributary of the ideological mainstream.

Anyone is free to call me a visionary or an escapist, but my contention is that we have potential friends who we have simply failed to discover as of yet. Making the right decisions concerning open source, and applying open source wisely, can be an entry point to fruitful contacts with anti-globalists in China, Japan, and Korea. Public opinion in these countries, which are nowadays highly developed, holds a fair measure of scepticism against globalisation, a scepticism which is reflected in the high-level strategic choices of their software platforms. The People’s Republic of China has given political priority to the open source operating system Linux, which is rooted in UNIX. The Korean telecommunications corporation Samsung uses the Android operating system, which is derived from Linux. Which possibilities for collaboration currently exist are probably determined by the scope of our collective imagination, but it is up to us to take a chance on it, and favourable auspices are already in place considering that the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese are as tired of globalisation as we are, and equally sceptical of the idea that major decisions having ramifications for their wealth and daily lives should be taken behind the opaque doors of distant headquarters.

We do not face the media, government, Microsoft, IBM, or any of the others alone, and we can make sure they do not always get their way, as they have up to this point. We hold part of the solution in our own hands and brains, if we can make use of open source wisely and strategically.

There's More to Pumpkin Seeds than You Ever Thought

via Enza Ferreri

I love pumpkin seeds for their taste, and recently I started snacking on them in the late evening before going to bed.

After a while I noticed that I was falling asleep much more easily than had been the case for some time. A persistent cold and cough I had been suffering from had also disappeared.

The causes can be manifold, of course, but I noticed the strange coincidences and I decided to look up the health benefits of pumpkin seeds, if any existed: I wasn't even aware that they possessed them, for if you like the taste of a particular food you're not inclined to dwell too much on the question of whether it's good for you. Just in case you find out that it isn't.

From my research it turned out that the improvements I had discovered in myself could likely have been the result of consuming this great food, which, according to Nutrition Research Reviews, has indeed many medicinal properties.

The report of a study published in Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences and entitled "The effects of methanolic, chloroform, and ethylacetate extracts of the Cucurbita pepo L. on the delay type hypersensitivity and antibody production" starts in this way:
Pumpkin, as a dietary plant, has been used in traditional medicine around the world. In addition, during the last decade, antidiabetic, antihypertensive, antitumor, intestinal antiparasitic, antibacterial, anti hypercholesterolemia, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory and analgic effects of pumpkin has been reported.
The study in itself is performed on mice therefore, as is well known, the application to humans is extremely unsafe. But the essay's introduction indicates the scientific recognition of this plant's health benefits.

Pumpkin seeds contain the vegetable compounds phytosterols, as well as free-radical scavenging antioxidants, also useful.

The 2015 study "Evaluation of the potential of squash pumpkin by-products (seeds and shell) as sources of antioxidant and bioactive compounds" concludes:
This work shows that the residues produced from agro-food industries, like pumpkin shells and seeds are potentially good sources of antioxidant compounds like polyphenols, beneficial for human health. Therefore it is of high interest to develop low cost/effective methods of processing to transform them in added value co-products.
Pumpkin seeds and their oil have benefits for postmenopausal women.

For men's health as well, pumpkin seeds have long been known to be important. Their high zinc content is beneficial for the prostate. Studies have shown that their oil can be used in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia, namely enlarged prostate gland.

Research results published in the Journal of Food Science and Technology show that pumpkin contains appreciable amounts of important nutrients, including calcium, iron, zinc, total dietary fibre and β-carotene.

Zinc, of which pumpkin seeds are rich, has many crucial functions, including sleep, insulin regulation, mood, eye and skin health, and particularly it supports the immune system. Zinc deficiency is common in our societies, and that leads to increased incidence of colds and flu, as well as depression and chronic fatigue. The boost to my immune system from pumpkin seeds could explain my better resistance to cold and cough.

And what about my own experience of falling asleep more easily? That link with pumpkin seeds too has found confirmation in scientific literature.

Pumpkin seeds are rich in the amino acid tryptophan (proteins are complex molecules made of amino acids), that the body converts into the highly precious neurotransmitter serotonin which in turn is converted into melatonin, called the "sleep hormone". Research has found that protein source tryptophan is comparable to pharmaceutical grade tryptophan for the treatment of insomnia.

In addition, pumpkin seeds are cheap, easy to eat, easy to carry, don't require cooking, etc etc.

In case you are thinking that I have invested in pumpkin seed companies' shares or otherwise have vested interests in them, I haven't. But now I may be starting giving it a thought.

A Quote from Codreanu on Walking "the Path of Honour"

via Ur-Fascist Analytics

"Walk only on the path of honour. Fight and never exhibit cowardice. Leave to lesser men the ways of infamy. Better to fall in battle, struggling on the path of honour, than to win the battle through the ways of infamy."
- Corneliu Zelea Codreanu in "Cărticica şefului de cuib" 
"Mergi numai pe căile indicate de onoare. Luptă şi nu fi niciodată mişel. Lasă pentru alţii căile infamiei. Decât să învingi printr-o infamie, mai bine cazi luptând pe drumul onoarei." 
- Corneliu Zelea Codreanu în "Cărticica şefului de cuib"

We’re Here. We’re not Queer. Get Used to It

via TradYouth

Earlier this month, Todd Lewis attacked our project from the anti-White/pro-Christian direction, insisting that Christianity is integrally anti-White. We receive attacks, insults, and even the occasional excommunication from anti-Whites under the delusion that God himself commands White Genocide. Yesterday, the latest incoming landed in my mentions from Greg Johnson, who insists that Christianity is anti-homosexual and therefore an impediment to White Advocate solidarity.
We get it from all sides.

The anti-White Christians are sure that we’re pagan racial supremacists in sheep’s clothing. The anti-Christian nationalists are sure that we’re itching to go on a new crusade against all the heretics. That’s life on the third rail, and we accept it. But it’s imperative that we respond in these sorts of circumstances, as silence is often mistaken for an implicit admission of guilt.
Unfortunately, the Left is not the only source of gay panics in our ranks. The most recent examples are self-inflicted.
For instance, after the Halloween 2015 National Policy Institute conference, the Two Matts, Parrott and Heimbach, made up the story that Heimbach was disinvited from NPI because a “gay mafia” disapproved of his Old Testament opinions on homosexuality.
Greg Johnson knows this to be false, yet he repeats it. In private conversation with Scott Terry, Heimbach referred to the elitist clique which runs NPI and thinks it runs White Nationalism “faggots.” There was a misunderstanding, and Scott remarked about it on his blog, without our foreknowledge or suggestion. Imagine a Venn Diagram, with “faggot” and “homosexual” circles. While there are indeed a good share of both open and closeted homosexuals in our movement who happen to be both homosexuals and faggots, a good share of these anti-Christian bourgeoisie poseurs with an elitist classist pose are presumably straight.

And there are certainly a few gentlemen who come to mind who happen to be homosexuals but don’t happen to be faggots, namely a man whose name I won’t name on account of his always finding himself in the middle of childish feuding he has no part in instigating or fueling. The most critical and most frequently overlooked way that one can be anti-homosexual is to stop playing along with the liberal myth that it’s a coherent identity. It’s a habit, not an identity. One’s a homosexual the way one’s a smoker or a gambler. It’s not like being Italian or Mennonite or whatever.

Following that logic, I don’t bring up what I consider someone’s bad habits unless they make it an issue. Even if they’ve made it an issue in the past, if they’re not promoting the habit, I stay in my lane. As much as I may ideologically oppose libertarianism and promote communal morality, a solid streak of Appalachian disinterest in litigating others’ private business remains. There are numerous people who happen to be homosexuals who want no part in this feud, and I’m not going to drag them into it.

Even if one accepts the notion that I insidiously schemed to press the Gay Panic button on Richard Spencer, history confirms that the first victim of Gay Panic was actually Matthew Heimbach himself. A few years ago, Pastor Tom Robb, the leader of one of the larger klan groups, started a rumor campaign against Heimbach “because” he chose to attend American Renaissance despite [redacted] also attending. Heimbach attended despite this asinine smear campaign, and both got along just fine. After that smear failed to work, Pastor Robb later managed to achieve some success, compelling Stormfront to ban us from future Stormfront Retreats on account of our “anti-Americanism.”

Any stick will do.

Few of the accusations flying in any direction, including those from Greg Johnson, have any substance whatsoever. This is a middle school food fight and the pastries actually being launched are of little consequence. There’s a limited amount of financing, a limited amount of active supporters, and there’s a perpetual zero-sum competition for a relatively small pie. Pastor Robb lost some quality talent and support to our project and has been striking back ever since.

One thing to bear in mind is that just about all of the nationalists attacking us are full-time activists who rely primarily on fundraising. While aggressive fundraising is great, and being able to do this stuff full-time seems fine at first glance, our project is a threat to their livelihoods. If one were to ask me before this all broke out, “Who are the most aggressive fundraisers in our entire cause?” the list of people would have pretty much been the list of people trying to pick feuds with us at the moment.

While I’ve left the Mormon Church a long time ago, I learned some administrative lessons while there. One thing the rather successful LDS institution does is generally avoid full-time employees. Almost everybody’s a volunteer or has some other form of support. While we are working to fundraise more, and do look forward to eventually paying writers and reimbursing people more liberally for their expenses and investments, we all have day jobs. Not a single penny we raise goes to any of us at the moment.

There are movement folks who rely on donations to meet their expenses who maintain a constructive “bake more pie” attitude to the fight over the fixed amount of financial support. But a cursory survey of our cause confirms that perhaps more projects should consider restructuring to minimize this circular firing squad behavior.
Their motive was narcissistic rage, and their aim was simply to harm NPI by starting a gay panic, a troll so divisive that it was eagerly promoted by the Southern Poverty Law Center which shares the same destructive agenda.
While the realpolitik of petty factionalism is the primary factor here, the gay thing deserves some clarification.

It gets even more ironic than the fact that Heimbach himself was the first target of Gay Panic. Richard Spencer pressed the button on himself with his article insinuating that NPI had overcome its homophobia and embraced a more “diverse and tolerant” position on social issues. By the time the SPLC got around to quoting Scott Terry’s blog post, there were literally years of “smelly hamster cage” nonsense going on about homosexuality and NPI-affiliated projects, much of it entirely self-inflicted. The SPLC has been reporting on this mess since well before Halloween, disproving Greg’s conspiracy theory that I personally concocted it.
Naturally, there followed a great deal of squeaking and spinning in the smelly hamster cages of the internet movement, which generated a great deal of distrust and ill-will but did nothing to stop or slow down our race’s programmed march to extinction.
One thing that’s surely doing nothing to stop or slow down our race’s programmed march to extinction is the ongoing religious squabbling between the “pagans” and the Christians. The scare quotes around “pagans” are necessary, in my opinion, as many actual pagans have nothing to do with this mess.

One reason (certainly not the only reason) that Greg’s anti-Christian is he harbors the notion popular in the gay community that Christianity is what caused homosexuality to be taboo in the first place. The pink swastika folks take it one step further, ultimately insisting that we’d all be cool with gay stuff if it hadn’t been for Jewish/Semitic influence on the foam party which was supposedly the pre-Christian West.

Of course, precivilized Western folks who indulged in sodomy were, with a handful of pederast exceptions, more likely to find themselves drowned in a bog than hooking up on Prehistoric Grindr. Homosexuality is universally taboo because it’s dangerous, dysfunctional, and degenerate. It’s not a healthy part of a balanced civilization. Homosexuality’s like shingles, always lingering in the background but only flaring up into a real problem when a civilization’s somehow weakened or decrepit.

The Christian position on homosexuality is commensurate with just about every comparable religious tradition, including the indigenously Western ones. My position is pretty much identical to Greg’s stated position, which is that we should be an explicitly pro-family, pro-heterosexual movement while thoughtfully muddling through and patiently coping with all of the dangerous, dysfunctional, and degenerate habits that each of us all bring with us from this broken society. I’m a Traditionalist, not Fundamentalist. And part of the difference between one and the other is that I have no illusions about completely perfecting either myself or my society.

Neither Heimbach nor myself are the crusading madmen eager to attack homosexuals that Greg, Richard, and others are trying to make us out to be. Pastor Robb was closer to the truth of the matter with his original charge that we’re willing to work with just about anybody who is willing to work with us on promoting our tribalist and/or traditionalist agendas. I try to be pagan-friendly, and I shall remain so because there are indeed some folkish people for whom paganism isn’t a synonym for anti-Christian reactionary modernism.

With Greg and most of the others, you’re infinitely more likely to hear a diatribe against Christianity  than you’re likely to hear any talk of runes, folklore, or quotations from The Havamal. It’s a posture, and if I were an actual folkish traditionalist, I would find it tiresome that my tradition is being misappropriated by these people. Christianity has very little to do with this feud, and Greg Johnson is smart enough to know that. After all, Sinead herself is at least as passionate in her attacks on Christianity as she is in her attacks on homosexuals.

Greg would have you believe that there are only two options for dealing with this “Gay Panic” problem.
Gay panics weaken the movement, so how can we armor ourselves against them? There are basically only two options: (1) get rid of all homosexuals or (2) stop caring about them.

We’re here. We’re queer. Get used to it!

He expects you to fall for this false dichotomy, then insists that you must go with the second option because the first option is unworkable. I agree that it’s impossible to get rid of all the homosexuals. Furthermore, I believe nationalism and reactionary sentiment are surging within the gay community as a natural and predictable backlash against both the mainstreaming of homosexuality and against the minorities overwhelming the community.

While most nationalist homosexuals are surely sincere in their political convictions, the pink swastika serves a valuable function in subcultural gentrification. If you wish to keep your homosexual circle White and exclusive, nailing a swastika to the door is the best way to get the job done. Without it, the wealthy, sophisticated, and cultured homosexuals have no way to distance themselves from the growing mass of unsophisticated, uncultured, and non-White homosexuals. A similar phenomenon will eventually catch on among straight people within the next decade or so, but gays have a way of being at the vanguard of trends.

As much as I love it when anybody becomes pro-White, we as a movement can’t simply stop caring about gays or start ignoring them. They are arriving in real numbers with a relatively defined agenda. They are arriving with a tremendous amount of money relative to our cash-starved cause. They are arriving with a tremendous amount of talent. Homosexuals are a vibrant and creative bunch. I’ll give them that. But what I won’t give them is carte blanche to attack and isolate the Christians, the traditionalists, and the women in our ranks.

If there is to be a “gay panic,” it should be less about fearing literal grooming and buggery than about their political agenda. While Greg’s record on women’s issues is indeed unimpeachable, the pink swastika clique as a whole is impatient with women in general and traditional femininity in particular. While Counter-Currents sells books and publishes articles from within the New Right and Radical Traditionalist philosophical milieu, they’re generally antagonistic toward traditionalism and most traditions–aside from the esoteric and initiatic optics, of course.

The clique favors an elitist and secretive approach which reacts to populism and working class outreach and aesthetics like a vampire to garlic. The clique, most importantly and obviously, is strongly anti-Christian. If we take Greg’s advice and merely ignore them, then they’ll remain unchecked in their promotion of that agenda. Even if one’s not the least bit homophobic (I don’t happen to be), even if one doesn’t believe it’s a major Christian sin (I do), there’s a very good case for being mindful of their presence and alert to ensure that they contribute useful work rather than religious feuding and destructive entryism.

The re-emergence of nationalist sentiment in the West isn’t bubbling up when and where we all expected it. It’s almost exclusively, as James O’Meara would perhaps suggest, occurring from the left-handed side of things. The gay subculture, the vulgar and porn-infested imageboards, the darknet, and such are not only coming around to nationalism, but traditionalism and traditional Christianity, as well. Striking that right balance where we welcome newcomers while also being mindful of their baggage and motives will be a defining challenge for the pro-White cause.

Merely turning a blind eye to this phenomenon is not an option.

President Trump Would End Anti-European Immigration Agenda

via White GeNOcide Project

In a speech at The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2013, Donald Trump criticized America’s decades-long policy of restricting immigration from Europe, in favor of non-Western countries.

I say to myself ‘why aren’t we letting people in from Europe?’” Trump said.

I have many friends, many, many friends – and nobody wants to talk [about] this, nobody wants to say it – but I have many, many friends from Europe. They wanna come in.

People I know, tremendous people, hardworking people. They can’t come in.
I know people who’s sons went to Harvard – top in their class, went to the Wharton school of finance – great, great students.

We educate them, we make them really good, they go home [because] they can’t stay here, so they work from their country, and . . . they work very effectively against us. Now how stupid is that?

Since 1965, America’s immigration policy has been to restrict immigrants from majority White countries, and to let non-White immigrants in their place.

Whenever you hear politicians screaming about “open borders”, what they mean is: Africans get to keep Africa, Asians get to keep Asia, but White countries must eliminate their majority White populations with mass immigration.

In other words: Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, but White countries for everyone.

The Immigration system has been deliberately engineered to get rid of the White majority. If this was done to any other group of people, for example Tibetans, it would be classed as genocide.

We are working to expose this “diversity” agenda for what it really is: White genocide.

Obama Nominates Another Jew, Merrick Garland, to Supreme Court


Another antarian Jew on the
Supreme Court?
President Obama has nominated D.C. Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland to fill the Supreme Court post made open by Justice Scalia’s sudden death. I will leave a debate on Garland’s judicial philosophy to others, and concentrate on what this does to the ethnic make-up of the court. Garland has a Jewish mother, was raised Jewish, married a Jew, and as you can see from the Jerusalem Post article below, is accepted as a Jew. He joins Elana Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the fourth Jew on the court. (There are some indications that Sonia Sotomayor is part Sephardic, but she was raised Catholic.)

If confirmed, the high court would have four Jews, three European Americans (John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel Alito), one black (Clarance Thomas), and the Hispanic Sotomayor. All of the non-Jews are Catholic, so the court will continue to not have a single representative of America’s Protestant majority.

And now for the gloating from the Jerusalem Post . . .

Could It Happen Here?

via Radix

Radix Editor's Note: This essay is based on a speech given at NPI's 2016 winter conference, Identity Politics.

The Donald Trump phenomenon is amazing. I’ve never seen such enthusiasm for a politician—ever. His rallies are overflowing with emotion. This scares a lot of people because it conjures up images of populism, and even fascism. There’s something about crowds of cheering White people that terrifies America’s elites, especially when the speaker is criticizing their long-standing immigration policies. 

We have become inured to an arrangement in which major party candidates are vetted by the media and the donor class before being put up for election. It’s a top-down system that more resembles an oligarchy than a democracy. Donald Trump has not been vetted.

Trump has said some incredible things—things I never thought I would hear from a politician with a real chance to win it all: birthright citizenship, Mexican criminality, a moratorium on admitting Muslims, an immigration policy that meets the needs of Americans, to name but a few. Without Trump in the GOP field, we’d be choosing between candidates’ methods of balancing the budget.

For years, the system has been stacked against our movement, to put it mildly. We have been doing our best to figure out how to get our issues before the public—issues like immigration and the demographic transformation of the United States. We ask: How could it happen? How could a political movement arise that would ignite the imaginations of White America, depose the corrupt donor class in the Republican Party and the corrupt politicians in Congress, and generate a populist uprising among those Peter Brimelow calls the “historic American nation”?

Among the forces stacked against us, most prominent have been the mainstream media, which reflect academic culture and political culture generally. The media, academia, and the bureaucracy have been engaged in a top-down revolution, in which the moral and intellectual high ground has been seized by people hostile to the traditional peoples and cultures of the West.

The top-down nature of this revolution cannot be overemphasized. There was never a demand by a majority, or even something close to a majority, from any Western country for a complete transformation, to the point that White people will soon be minorities in societies they had dominated for hundreds and, in the case of Europe, many thousands of years.

The mainstream media environment is closed off to our message that Whites have interests, just like everybody else; that identifying as a White person who wants to advance these interests is normal and natural; that race is real; that there are real racial differences in traits important for success in a modern society and that there is no magic wand to change these traits; and finally and most importantly, that immigration and multiculturalism carry huge costs in terms of social cohesion, social conflict, trust, and willingness to contribute to public goods, like healthcare, welfare, and public infrastructure.

The only type of person who could get through this elite consensus is someone who is, first of all, a celebrity, but also wealthy and willing and able to fund his own campaign—in other words, someone like Donald Trump.

Political celebrities have an enormous ability to shape public debate because the media cannot ignore them. Trump is not going to speak about racial issues in the way we would. He would be foolish to do so, and it is strategically wise for him to repudiate our support. But his statements on immigration, his violations of the pious platitudes of political correctness, his advocacy on behalf of American workers, and his condemnation of Angela Merkel’s policies and the ongoing refugee disaster in Europe have been energizing to say the least.

Trump’s courage is infectious, and he is disinhibiting people. More people are standing up to political correctness like never before, and seeing Trump as a symbol of their defiance. At Rutgers University, students chanted “Trump, Trump, Trump” repeatedly when Black activists tried to disrupt a conservative speaker.

What the establishment fears most is a highly visible, personally attractive, honest, populist candidate who cannot be shut out of the media, and who has enough money to run a viable campaign. Certainly, the Republican Party—the party dominated by the Chamber of Commerce and the Israel Lobby—richly deserves to die, unless it can appeal to the real interests of its base—middle- and working class White America.

As I mentioned, the U.S. now better resembles an oligarchy than a democracy. In fact, a recent paper by two Princeton political scientists shows that an oligarchic model fits U.S. politics better than a democratic one, as demonstrated by policy issues, where elites in business, politics, the media, and academia hold starkly different attitudes than the majority of Americans on issues like immigration. In turn, the attitudes of the Chamber of Commerce, the neocon establishment, and the Republican Jewish Coalition on immigration are not even remotely connected to the attitudes of the GOP base. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 90 percent of GOP voters oppose an increase in immigration, yet a restrictionist policy has never been supported by elites in the Republican Party. Indeed, elites favor something like Marco Rubio’s Gang of Eight bill, which would have doubled legal immigration and given amnesty to untold millions.

The anger is palpable, and the Trump candidacy is the most hopeful sign that the present oligarchy could be circumvented at the presidential level.

Neocons would much prefer Hillary to Trump. After all, she voted for the Iraq war and was instrumental in promoting the intervention into Libya. She supported sending arms to Syrian rebels and likened Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, to Hitler. She wholeheartedly backs Israel, and has her own set of rabidly pro-Israel foreign-policy advisors, including Robert Kagan, who advocates military intervention and democracy creation throughout the Middle East as a moral imperative. Clinton’s main donor is Haim Saban, a rabid Zionist who has said that his only issue is Israel.
Needless to say, Bill Kristol and the neocons would not lose any sleep if Hillary Clinton became president. In fact, I suspect they would prefer Hillary to any Republican candidate except Marco Rubio, who has the ideal blend of subservience to neocon foreign policy and enthusiasm for mass immigration.

On the other hand, Donald Trump opposed the Iraq war and has supported Vladimir Putin’s policy of supporting the Assad government in Syria. As is well known, Assad and Putin are very high on the neocon hate list. Trump has told the Republican Jewish Coalition that he doesn’t want their money because with their money comes control, and he has pledged to be neutral on the Israel-Palestine issue. Because of this blatant conflict with neocon thinking, Bill Kristol has been in the lead in floating third-party candidates to run against Trump should he get the GOP nomination.

Lately, Kristol and other neocons have proposed plans that would deny Trump the nomination even if he has a plurality of the delegates, knowing full well that this would give Hillary the election as millions of angry Trump voters would stay home. This would mean at least four more years of the Left in charge: Supreme Court appointments, crackdowns on politically incorrect speech, and the continued immigration of millions of future Democrats, which would make “conservatism” electorally impossible. For neocons like Kristol, the rhetoric of “principles” and “ideals” is a masquerade. Their real interest is an aggressive U.S. foreign policy serving the interests of Israel.

And for the neocons, a Trump-led GOP would be Armageddon, as their influence in the GOP would be finished. So expect a fight to the death.

But even on its own terms, it’s obvious that principles like “limited government” may fail to secure fundamental interests. The reality is that Trump voters are focusing on the big issues: immigration, first and foremost, but also trade. And Trump has, like no Republican since Pat Buchanan, criticized the policies that have devastated U.S. manufacturing and the White middle class.

It is extremely gratifying to read that evangelicals are supporting Trump, even though he does not have a history of being pro-life or opposed to gay marriage. For far too long, too many of our people have gotten sidetracked on issues that are simply not critical.

Immigration, more than any other issue, reflects fundamental interests in the ethnic composition of the United States. It is an enduring Utopian ideal that constitutional government and individual freedom can survive the importation of millions of people from radically different cultures—cultures that often possess hatred toward the peoples and cultures of the West. This has been a common defect among liberals going back to the 19 century—the belief that other people will become "just like us" when they come to the United States. To the contrary, concepts like liberty and constitutionalism have very deep ethnic roots, going back thousands of years in Europe.

A great irony is that self-styled “conservatives” don’t want to even countenance the idea that importing millions of non-Whites has resulted in increasing pressures directed squarely at some of their sacred “principles,” in particular very high chronic levels of welfare use and demand for public services in some immigrant groups. In other words, non-European immigrants want “big government” and lots of free stuff, and they could not care less about “conservatism.” A recent report, summarized by F. Roger Devlin, showed that over three-fourths of Hispanic households with children used some form of welfare, whether immigrant for not. And such people will be a voting majority if things don’t change.

Another very basic principle that conservatives adhere to, and which is under threat from immigration, is freedom of speech. Multiculturalism has resulted in pressure for controls on speech and thought resulting from the need to placate aggressive minorities, who don't take criticism kindly, no matter how factually based it might be. It is fair to say that the Left, which during the 1950s championed free speech for Communists, is quite comfortable with controls on free speech now that they are in power. This is especially the case in universities and the media, where violators of multicultural decorum are routinely harassed and fired. Intellectual rationales for curtailing speech critical of the multicultural ideal are already common in liberal academic circles, awaiting only one more liberal appointment to the Supreme Court. (The death of Antonin Scalia is extremely important in this regard; it is thus difficult to take seriously neocons like Bill Kristol, who prefer Hillary over Trump, when they claim that they care about much else than Israel’s national security.)

In Europe, police-state controls on thought and behavior intended to buttress the multicultural revolution, which is really an anti-White revolution, are firmly ensconced. In the UK, Germany, and elsewhere, people have been investigated and in some cases arrested for Facebook and Twitter posts simply opposing migration and the transformation of their societies. Recently Twitter set up a committee, which includes the ADL and various Social Justice Warriors, in order to better police its content. The ADL is notoriously opposed to free speech, and in general the organized Jewish community throughout the West has been a major force in placing penalties on speech related to race, ethnicity, and immigration. It is no surprise that these same groups have been hostile to Trump, especially because of his statements on Muslim immigration and refugee policy. Such organizations have been in the forefront of promoting a multicultural and non-White America, and they see Trump, correctly, as a man who brings into question the elite consensus on these issues.

It is predictable that the response to incidents such as the mass sexual assaults in Cologne would be enhanced police surveillance and the curtailment of civil liberties. We are living in societies that are not only dominated by the ideology of multiculturalism but are budding police states as well. In response, many people, especially women, will be intimidated and choose not to attend public events or public facilities like swimming pools. This is not the culture we want to live in. Principled conservatives should be horrified at this—and therefore be open to Trump’s proposals on Muslim immigration.

And it will likely be worse in the second generation. The data show that second-generation children of migrants are vastly more likely to commit crimes. By the second generation, poorer immigrant groups become susceptible to radicalization by ideologies that rationalize their low socioeconomic status and sense of alienation by making them out to be victims of White racism and privilege. These ideologies are acquired from universities, schools, the media, politicians and ethnic leaders.

In the long run, multiculturalism can’t exist without powerful social controls on speech and behavior, and conservatives need to wake up to this reality. As ethnic conflict continues to escalate throughout the West, increasingly desperate attempts will be made to prop up the ideology of multiculturalism with sophisticated theories of the psychopathology of White ethnocentrism, the ideology that any and all bad behavior or underachievement by non-Whites is caused by pervasive White racism (including the now fashionable concept of “microaggression”). There will be police state controls on non-conforming thought and behavior.

Although terrorism and the recent mass sexual assaults in Germany certainly focus the public’s attention on the costs of massive unselected immigration, the far greater problem is the loss of a traditional sense of national identity as bound up with a particular people and culture. Citizenship becomes a hollowed-out legalism—what is often termed the “proposition nation” concept of citizenship, dedicated only to abstractions like freedom, democracy and limited government, rather than the identity and interests of a particular people. The origins of the “proposition nation” concept are discussed extensively in my book The Culture of Critique. This ideology is now well established among political and intellectual elites throughout the West. A belief in America as a White, European civilization was strong in the 1920s; it was on the defensive in the 1930s; and it disappeared, more or less, completely after World War II. It was not a natural death but the result of a prolonged assault by the intellectual Left. It is now maintained, not by the free flow of ideas, but by imposing costs on dissenters, such as job loss, ostracism, and lack of access to the mainstream media.

The sad reality is that the suicide of the West has become a moral imperative in elite circles, a testimony to the enduring and unique appeal of moral principle that has been so characteristic of the West, at least since the 19th century—apparent, for example, in the anti-slavery movement, where anti-slavery activists were successful by highlighting the suffering of Africans, and in the recent outpouring of empathy in response to the photos of the migrant child washed up on the beach in Turkey.

Every war, at least since the Civil War, has been justified on moral grounds. I know of no other culture that is so susceptible to such arguments. Will Israel apologize out of guilt for what they are doing to the Palestinians? Will Muslims apologize for their expansion in Asia, North Africa, and parts of Europe? Of course not. Instead, Whites feel the need to endlessly apologize for driving Muslims out of Spain!

Some moral crusades are justified. But so many cases, such as the Iraq war, which was promoted by neocons and the Israel Lobby, moral sentiments are manipulated cynically by elites who pursue very real and very immoral interests. Right now, these moral sentiments and proneness to empathy are being cynically manipulated in the service of displacing White America.

The outcome of present policies is an utterly predictable decline in social cohesion, with far-ranging costs in terms of increased conflict and crime, and a lessened willingness and ability to contribute to public goods. Each of the national healthcare programs in Europe was enacted when these societies were homogeneously White and citizens had a sense of being part of a common culture reaching back far into the pre-historic past. It is well known that people in ethnically diverse societies invest less in social capital; they cooperate less; they are less prone to engage in volunteer work; and there is less trust among citizens. We should keep in mind that evolution occurred in small ethnically homogeneous groups. The hunter-gatherer mentality, which is a critical strand of European culture, evolved in small, face-to-face encounters, where trust and moral reputation were absolutely critical.

The problem is that now Europeans are being asked to participate in their own suicide in order to maintain their reputation as moral, upstanding citizens and avoid being called “racist.” So many of us shudder at the thought of being ostracized and humiliated as pariahs simply for expressing a sense of identity. This is testimony to the ability of the Left, with its power in the media and educational system, to create morally defined in-groups, which are ultimately suicidal for the peoples and culture of the West. Our task is to create a counter culture—one that is based on science and truth, to be sure, but one that is also deeply moral and emphasizes the righteousness of protecting our people and culture.

Thilo Sarrazin has already warned Germans about the deeply immoral consequences of non-European immigration in his book Germany Abolishes Itself. Sarrazin documented the slow pace of integration of Turkish immigrants into German society and economy, their disproportionate reliance on government welfare, and their higher fertility. Most importantly, given the (genetically influenced) lower IQ and academic achievement of the new immigrants compared to native Germans and other Western societies, there will be ethnic stratification in which ethnicity becomes correlated with social class—a poisonous situation, indeed. Ethnic stratification has always existed in the U.S. because of African-Americans, but immigration from Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East simply makes it worse. This results in the racialization of politics, in which people vote along racial/ethnic lines, with the migrants and their descendants much more likely to vote for the parties of the Left, with their generous welfare policies and promotion of immigration and affirmative action. And the Left, having abandoned its White working-class base, views immigration as the key to its political success.

The racialization of politics is a critical process of our time. Even a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist, who seeks to view all social phenomena in terms of the “class struggle,” could not fail to see that the political fault lines are fast becoming based on race. The vast majority of Republican votes are from Whites, and around 60–65 percent of European-descended Whites vote Republican. This is likely not a ceiling. In fact, the White Republican vote is regularly increasing by 1.5 percent in each presidential election cycle, and Trump may well attract many more Whites, especially working-class Whites, who either stayed home in 2012 or voted Democrat.

In the 2012 election, White Americans of all social classes, both sexes, and all age groups voted for Mitt Romney and his sidekick Paul Ryan, both of whom represented almost parodies of Republicans as plutocratic, Ayn Rand-reading members of the Chamber of Commerce. Even White “Millennials” (age 18–29) and the White working class, which has gotten absolutely nothing from the Republican Party, voted for Romney/Ryan. At the same time, an average of around 80 percent of non-Whites voted Democrat. It’s becoming obvious to everyone that the much-advertised era of racial harmony isn’t going to happen any time soon.

The racialization of politics reflects what I have termed implicit Whiteness. Despite the current cultural programming featuring Blacks and Whites as best friends in Bud Lite commercials, White people are gradually coalescing into “implicit White communities” in multicultural America—that is, communities that reflect White identity, but which “dare not speak its name.”

Research on ethnocentrism has shown that people often have unconscious attitudes that they do not express explicitly. Unconsciously, the vast majority of Whites have the usual stereotypes about Blacks, but they would never say so explicitly, at least partly for fear of the consequences. Parents’ choice of schools and neighborhoods (their “revealed preferences”) reflect this widespread racial hypocrisy. Parents, including liberal parents, act on their implicit attitudes, and there is a profound gap between their implicit attitudes and behavior (where they show in-group racial preference) and their explicit attitudes (where they piously express the official ideology of egalitarianism).

In effect, they are creating implicit White communities. They do not explicitly state that their choice of friends, neighborhoods, and schools derives from racial preference, because that conflicts with their explicit racial attitudes and with official ideology. And when explaining why they vote Republican, they talk about “limited government,” opposition to the welfare state, and lower taxes. In turn, Republican candidates often appeal to them in exactly these terms.

The problem is, Whites often believe in their rationalizations and hold them dearly. They thus resist asserting their real, fundamental interest in preventing the demographic transformation of the United States. The beauty of Trump is that he is cutting to the core issues—issues like immigration—which are implicitly White issues and, if addressed properly, could resist or even reverse the demographic transformation (“Make America Great Again”).

White Americans are gradually coalescing into political and cultural affiliation as Whites, and this trend will continue to strengthen in the future—identities such as being a Republican, a NASCAR racing enthusiast, an evangelical Christian, a country music fan, or even a National Review-reading conservative in love with “limited government.” All of these are associated with the political Right in the United States.

But there are also implicit White communities on the Left. One such group are the affluent, well-educated Whites that Christian Lander talked about in his famous blog, Stuff White People Like. They love farmers’ markets, expensive bicycles, and driving Priuses. More disturbingly, they idolize Blacks as cultural heroes; they adopt Black children; and they vote for the likes of Bernie Sanders. They passionately believe in a future world in which everyone will be nice; they passionately believe in a United States where everyone should be welcome because, after all, people are the same everywhere. These White liberals are highly prone to racial guilt complex. Landers had a very funny blog on how they feel guilt for not recycling. “Look in their eyes. All they can see is the bottle lasting forever in a landfill, trapping small animals.”

So imagine the guilt they would feel in voting for Trump—or explicitly opposing Muslim or non-White immigration. The headline in Huffington Post after Trump won New Hampshire screamed: “New Hampshire goes racist, sexist, xenophobic”; after South Carolina, it pictured Trump giving a fascist salute. Surely none of these morally self-righteous White people could possibly vote for Donald Trump without unending guilt.

For such White people, their White identity is entirely compatible with the dispossession of Whites via immigration and multiculturalism. Many of them look forward to a non-White America, even as they continue to associate with other Whites down at the local Whole Foods or at their church supper. They are collaborating with the elites that are dispossessing White America, and they feel morally righteous in doing so—exactly as they were told in their sociology class in college and in the mainstream media every day.

Of course, the “Stuff White People Like” Democrats will rationalize their voting with morally uplifting platitudes that make them feel well-educated, intellectual superior, and in tune with the brightest minds in academia, Hollywood, and the editorial board of the New York Times. In my view this is a potentially fatal weakness of a great many European-descended people, resulting from our evolutionary history. This weakness is endlessly exploited in the media and educational system.

And of course, quite a few of these people live in predominantly White areas like New Hampshire, Iowa, or fancy suburbs of major cities. These people are relatively removed from the downsides of immigration and multiculturalism, and in the suburbs, they can hire a nanny and get their lawn mowed cheaply through Hispanic labor. It’s easy to be moral and principled when the costs aren’t yet personally apparent, and when you still feel connected to your predominantly White community. But if present trends continue, moving away and insulating yourself from diversity won’t be an option for millions of Whites. In South Carolina, Trump was strongest in counties with the highest non-White populations; this is consistent with research showing that diversity results in greater White racial consciousness, and showing that Trump is the implicitly White candidate.

Because of the deluge of non-White immigration, the Republican form of implicit White identity attracts a majority of Whites, and this majority will increase in the future. But the affluent NPR-listening Whites are still a force, and without them, the Democrats would be in serious trouble, at least until there is a non-White voting majority—a scenario that has infinite appeal to our enemies.

The Trump candidacy may or may not work out, and even if he becomes president, it would be a very tall order to put in place the fundamental changes that need to be made. However, the anger against the establishment that he is tapping into will just continue to become worse if he does not win and things keep going the way they are going. The anger will be especially strong if people have good reason to think that the presidency was stolen from Trump by devious tactics at the convention, or by some bogus third-party candidate put forward by establishment Republicans and “conservatives.” If Trump loses, we have to hope he starts a third-party movement that could destroy the GOP forever and lay the groundwork for a new kind of politics in the future. It’s only a matter of time before Whites identify and organize explicitly as Whites, just as every other group does.

For our part, we have to keep on doing what we are doing. There are many signs we are getting stronger and that our message is being heard, and it is gratifying to say the least to see so many young, smart, and educated Whites gravitating to our cause—like so many of you here this evening. We must understand that our message is based on science and the realities of human behavior—and, more important, it is morally righteous. We have every reason to look forward to the future. Indeed, we should project the image of confident, optimistic warriors—exactly the image that Donald Trump projects. We know that the transformations that are occurring are evil, and that they were engineered, not out of love for humanity, but out of a narrow self-interest of certain groups, groups that are possessed by a hatred toward the traditional peoples and cultures of the West. And we know that these transformations are supported by so many of our own people, possessed by a misguided, suicidal idealism.

These changes are well advanced, and our enemies remain wealthy, powerful, and determined. But there is a morally righteous anger in so much of White America that Trump is tapping into. Sooner or later this will have cataclysmic consequences.

European Pietas

via Cambria Will not Yield

I believe in the validity of my racial identity and treasure the continuity of my national traditions. I believe in, and honour, all those time-hallowed values and factors which have led us to greatness in the past, and which if retained will guarantee the greatness of our posterity. For unless we maintain the highest standards of which we are capable we shall not survive except as the slaves of others, which in the long run would mean that we would not survive at all. Thus I am indeed biased and prejudiced. I am indeed a ‘racist’ and in fundamental matters an extremist. – Anthony Jacob

You all know what these Indians have done to New England. For near a hundred years they’ve been sneaking up on our towns and farms, cutting folks to pieces while they were still alive, roasting ‘em alive, torturing ‘em every way a sick mind could think of. Well, we’re going to put an end to that. Remember our orders – kill every fighting man among ‘em, but let the women and children alone even though they’ve killed and captured ours. – Robert Rogers’ exhortation to his men before their punitive raid against the Abnakis Indian tribe


The liberals have always lived by the rule – “Whenever the democratic process is working toward our ends we shout, ‘The rule of law must be paramount.’” Whenever the democratic process is not working towards the liberals’ ends, they break the law in order to achieve their ends. When abortion was still theoretically illegal in the 1960’s, most of the liberal state governments disregarded the law. Now, when abortion is legal, those who protest abortion are – horror of horrors – ‘breaking the law.’ The same liberal shell game is taking place again with the anti-Trump rallies. No white dared to disrupt any of Obama’s rallies when he ran for President, for fear of being called a racist, and white nationalists such as David Duke were constantly, obsessively exhorting white people not to shoot Obama. Not so with the liberals and the usual assortment of colored barbarians. They feel no compunctions about disrupting Trump rallies and threatening to shoot him. Why do the liberals and their colored and heathen allies think they can adhere to such a blatant double standard? They do so because they are without sin; they are not racist, while Donald Trump and all of his supporters are racist. Therefore, there is no law on the face of the earth that can protect their rights, because racists have no rights. Anti-racism is the liberals’ faith. They are willing to violate lesser laws in order to be loyal to their higher law. If Trump actually wins the nomination and then the Presidency it will be a minor setback for the liberals, because a Trump Presidency will slow down the accelerating pace of the process by which whites are being exterminated. But the reigning ideology of anti-racism will still be supreme. That satanic creed must be purged before whites can have a homeland.

The term ‘racism’ was not invented by Trotsky, but he was the man who first used the term as a means of destroying the white man’s will to defend himself against the worldwide Jacobin Communist revolution. It has been the most effective weapon that has ever been used against the white race. In the last one hundred years since ‘racism’ has been used as the liberals’ nuclear option, the whites have left their empires in the colored lands and become the prisoners of colored heathens in their own lands. The old adage that “sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me” is incorrect. The fear of being named a racist has done to the European people what sticks, stones, bullets, and bombs could not do. It has destroyed their will to survive as a people.

Before Obama’s election it was quite common to hear white grazers say that they didn’t agree with any of his policies, but they were going to vote for him anyway in order to show that whites weren’t racist. The liberal-conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer expressed a similar sentiment about a potential candidacy of the negro Colin Powell. He didn’t agree with his politics, but he would vote for him to heal the racial divide. In Europe, those with the courage to protest the Islamic invasion are constantly claiming, “I am not racist.” One Brit, exiled for his ‘racist’ opposition to the Islamic invasion of Britain, tried desperately to plead his innocence, but to no avail: he was found guilty of the unpardonable sin – racism. It is always to no avail for a white man to claim he is innocent of the dreaded charge of racism. Did Obama’s election stop the liberals’ and the colored barbarians’ charges of racism? No, in fact, the charges of racism against whites increased after Obama’s election. Have the liberals’ stopped screaming racist at the whites who oppose the Islamic invasion of the European nations? No, they haven’t, despite the fact that those whites who oppose the Islamic invasion have never voiced their opposition in racial terms. The liberals will never listen to whites who plead innocent in their anti-racist courts. The white man will always be guilty in their courts, because the liberals’ anti-racist creed has no more to do with truth and justice than Jacobinism had anything to do with liberty, equality, and fraternity. Anti-racism, as a creed, is opposed to everything white and Christian, because it is the spiritual child of Jacobin Communism.  Until whites grasp the fact that the anti-racism banner of the liberals is the banner of a bloodthirsty, unrelenting, merciless foe that knows nothing of honor, charity, or love, they will be nothing more than cattle marked for slaughter, no matter who is elected in any of the American or European elections.

The devil has an accumulated knowledge of man’s history on earth that gives him a tremendous advantage over mankind. But that advantage can be offset by the Christian man who has not forsaken his blood faith in Christ. If he retains that faith by adhering to the mores, manners, and prejudices of his European ancestors and eschewing the rationalism of the church men and their secular counterparts, he will not have to face a satanic adversary armed only with his own feeble brain. The lifeblood of Jesus Christ will flow in his veins and he will be able to prevail against the wickedness and snares of the devil. The Jacobins, Trotsky, and their liberal descendants were and are willing to invoke the devil in their war against the European people. Why are the Europeans unwilling to invoke Christ in their war against the liberals and the colored heathens? They won’t invoke Christ, because they think they can go it alone with their own reason.

The church men, by placing reason above the blood wisdom of God’s people, have killed pietas, the love of the people of our own hearth fire. In so doing they have replaced the charity that never faileth with the rationalism that always faileth. The prejudiced Europeans, the racist Europeans, loved God and their neighbor. Who does the new rationalist man love? He is incapable of love, because there is no love or charity in a purely rational man; abstracted reason is the mark of the devil.

There is only a passionate hatred of God and His people in the rationalism of the church men and their secular counterparts. We must be passionately racist, loving our own with a passion that surpasseth the hatred of the rationalists, if we are ever going to launch a serious attack against the devil and his minions. If we continue to accept Trotsky’s demonization of white pietas as holy writ, we will remain in the liberals’ hell and fall prey to either the Moslems, the colored barbarians, or our own despair. Is that the fate we were born for? Yes, the liberals tell us.

The Christian atheists, their liberal counterparts, the neopagan rationalists, the Ayn-Randian objectivists, and all the other competing groups of post-Christian Europeans are all playing in the same board game. The game is called “Find the Mathematical Formula of Existence.” But what if mathematical logic cannot solve the problem of existence? What if the illogic of the fairy tales contains the truth of existence? The lay of the European minstrel told us of great heroes whose hearts belonged to Christ, the Hero-God. The antique Europeans, who made the lay of the minstrel part of their blood, rode triumphant over the barbarian hordes of color and the heathens. Now that the Europeans no longer listen to or heed the lay of the European minstrel, they go round and round on the rationalist merry-go-round, which is not so merry, without any hope of getting off.

In Walter Scott’s novel The Talisman, Saladin, in a verbal exchange with a Scottish knight, boasts of his descent from demons who mated with mortal women. The Scottish knight is horrified and angry. Why would a man boast of a descent from demons? But if Christ is not the Son of God, and Saladin believed He was not, then why shouldn’t a man be proud of his blood connection to demons who can infuse strength and power into his blood? The Catholic popes’ great ecumenical movements, in which they seek to fuse their rationalist faith, which is an unfaith, with negro worship, Islam, and every other heathen religion, are attempts to revitalize their cold, rationalist faith with the blood faiths of the heathens who worship the devil. The Protestant evangelicals have taken a similar path. They have turned to Judaism in order to revitalize their bloodless, soulless, rationalist faith. The European racist does not need a blood connection to the devil to revitalize his soul. He has a spirit and blood connection to Christ through the people of his racial hearth fire. European pietas is our answer to Christian atheism, liberalism, Islam, negro worship, and every other false faith that bids us reject Christ and our people.

Jewish Influence and Ethnic Networking in France: In Their Own Words

It is often difficult for ordinary people to understand how small groups can achieve such a preponderant influence in the life of a country. But such influence should not be surprising: Modern societies have a highly complex division of labor leading to enormous power asymmetries, with huge amounts of power being concentrated in the hands of the tiny elites making up the media, top oligarchs, and the political class—as the Donald Trump candidacy in the United States is bringing into stark relief.

This is a world of chummy networks and mutual back-scratching, one where even small ethnocentric elite networks can have a decisive impact. And, concerning Jewish ethnic networks, I have documented extensively (e.g., here) that they are massively overrepresented among French elites, that they are completely intolerant of criticism of Jewish power and ethnocentrism, and are equally intolerant of French ethno-nationalism. As further evidence, I present in this article a number of interesting statements, mostly from Jews, taken from Paul-Éric Blanrue’s books on Jewish power networks.

Even sympathetic observers have commented upon Jewish power even during the earliest years of the Fifth Republic in the 1960s. The famous Jewish anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss denounced in private the fact that Jewish media influence and bias were distorting coverage of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Lévy-Strauss went so far as to defend and repeat President Charles de Gaulle’s comments following the Six Day War that Jews were “an elite people, self-confident and dominating.”[1] Lévi-Strauss wrote to the Jewish liberal intellectual Raymond Aron on April 9, 1968:
Certain Jewish elements in France, taking advantage of their control over print or audiovisual media and of acquired positions, and arrogating to themselves the right to speak in the name of all the others, showed themselves to be “self-confident and dominating” [. . .]. From the first hour, we witnessed a systematic attempt to manipulate public opinion in this country. Remember France-Soir headlining on the entire page: “The Egyptians Attacked,” and this continued long after the Six Day War. [2]
“Secular Jews,” in effect liberal Zionists, were strongly represented in the senior ranks of opposition leader François Mitterrand’s Socialist Party. Mitterrand’s election as president in 1981 was quickly followed by closer ties with Israel. In particular, a May 1980 directive which had permitted French companies to boycott Israel if they so wished was abrogated. Arab countries had instituted a wider boycott of Israel due to the Jewish state’s persecution of the Palestinians. Mitterrand would in contrast rapidly institute economic sanctions against Apartheid South Africa and be the first head of state to be hosted by Nelson Mandela as president in 1994.

In 1991, the Jewish senior Socialist politician Dominique Strauss-Kahn stated in a Jewish publication that every diaspora Jew had a duty to support Israel and even to influence their host nation’s foreign policy to that end:
I consider that any diaspora Jew, and therefore this is true in France, must wherever they are support Israel. [. . .] [O]ne cannot at once complain that a country like France, for example, has had in the past and perhaps still today has, a too pro-Arab policy, and not try  to influence this policy [. . .]. In short, in my functions and in my everyday life, throughout all my actions, I try to ensure that my modest stone contribute to the building of the land of Israel.[3]
In 1992, the center-left Jewish journalist Claude Askolovitch cited the case of Bernard-Henri Lévy in a book on the power of nepotistic networks in France:
In 1992, Lévy entered [the major publishing house] Grasset as the collection director. The young man learned in three years what the elegant world of publishing houses took a century to take in. [. . .] As soon as he was in place, BHL works to swamp his publishing firm with the manuscripts of his little friends! [. . .] The principle is simple: Wherever these young people are, they talk about each other. The glory of the one redounds on the others, and so forth.[4]
These kinds of nepotistic networks are no doubt the principal factor in determining who is recognized with lofty titles like “intellectual” and “philosopher” in France today, even if these individuals are otherwise widely seen as mediocrities.

Alexandre Adler is a Jewish “geostrategist” who claims to have not received any Jewish identity from his parents “except the humor.” His life story is however stereotypically Jewish: raised by secular socialist parents, marrying the half-Jewish daughter of a Jewish communist, joining the French Communist Party himself in the 1960s, and finally reinventing himself as a neoconservative pundit in the early 2000s in which capacity he was a strong supporter of America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Adler wrote reassuringly in September 2000 that, although Jews’ numbers worldwide were declining, their influence was still growing:
The shrinking number of Jews compared the world population is largely compensated by a second and inverse phenomenon: The concentration of this population at the center of the global economic system and the near-total abandonment of the periphery. [. . .] Rural Judaism is a memory even in Israel. [. . .] This movement includes an upwards slide of this population towards senior management roles and towards a greater and greater participation in economic life and decision-making. New York, Los Angeles, London, and Paris perfectly symbolize this period in Jewish history.[5]
Thus Adler argued that a tiny minority like the Jews could retain considerable power by concentrating themselves in the most elite cities and circles that are so influential in a modern society: Finance, culture, and politics.

In 1994, Arno Klarsfeld, the son of “Nazi-hunters” Serge and Beate Klarsfeld, has emphasized his strong Jewish identity as being the determinant factor in his politics: “I consider myself a Jew politically. [. . .] I would prefer to marry a Jewess — at the synagogue of Venice if possible — and that my children be Jewish also. [. . .] It goes without saying that I am very attached to the State of Israel.”[6] Klarsfeld has strongly defended Israel, both by making arguments which can only be described as Talmudic nonsense[7] and serving in the Israeli Defense Forces, noting he would not serve in the French Army. While Klarsfeld is then a passioante supporter of the Jewish ethno-state, as a top government lawyer in France he has expressed strong support for the race-denying jus soli, granting non-Europeans born and raised in France automatic citizenship.[8]

Jews’ open professions of dual loyalty or even of first loyalty to Israel must be considered a marker of growing Jewish self-confidence (or even arrogance) and power. In the nineteenth century, the founder of Zionism Theodor Herzl was much more modest, writing in his diary: “A man must choose between Zion and France.”[9]

Blanrue highlights the fact that mainstream journalists are purged from the media for being too critical of Israel, let alone for mentioning Jewish power. Alain Ménargues was fired from two radio stations for comments on Palestine in 2004. He explained to Libération: “I was the victim of a manipulation [. . .] by a core of ethnocentric Jews [juifs communautaires].”[10] Ménargues later told a pro-Palestinian website that freedom of speech was disappearing and that Zionist advertisers were able to put pressure on the media, leading to self-censorship:
I have been practicing this profession for thirty years. [. . .] I am strongly irritated at seeing that in France a fundamental freedom is disappearing. [. . .] In my country, which is France, I cannot conceive that there be an intellectual terrorism which is forcing people to remain quiet under threat of becoming completely crushed. [. . .] Some need to make ends meet at the end of the month. There are many journalists who understand things as I do. But they are not free. Press bosses are afraid of losing subscribers, advertising revenue.[11]
The aptly-named Roger Cuckierman, the head of the official Jewish lobby,[12] gave a bizarre account of his decision to become a banker in a book published in 2008:
I discovered my vocation as a financier, notably after reading an anti-Semitic book by Henry Coston, entitled The Financiers Who Lead the World (1955). He convinced me that bankers had a considerable power over the economy and no other profession could be more interesting.[13]
The title of Cuckierman’s book is Ni fiers ni dominateurs, precisely spoofing General de Gaulle’s “stereotypical” description of Jews as proud and dominating. Yet, Cuckierman provides a stereotype-confirming account of his joining high finance precisely to attain economic influence. Very strange.

French Jews have been somewhat different from their American cousins in recent years in that they have often supported the neoconservative center-right over the more overtly multiculturalist center-left. This dates to the early 2000s and to the basic split between Muslims and Jews in France during the Second Intifada, when Israeli Jews intensified their persecution of Muslim Palestinians. Blanrue cites a 2006 poll showing 65% of Jews in favor of the quarter-Jewish Nicolas Sarkozy as candidate to the presidency, as against only 47% of non-Jews.[14] Patrick Gaubert, a center-right politician and president of the League Against Anti-Semitism and Racism (LICRA, an entirely Jewish-run organization), declared that Sarkozy is “a real star for Jews.”[15]

In 2008, Bruno Guigue, a subprefect (senior civil servant in a French county), was personally fired by the minister of justice for criticizing the Israel Lobby’s hostility to the United Nations and international law. Far-left Jews like the Green politician Esther Benbassa were critical of this, writing:
The firing of B. Guigue is first of all the sign of the impossibility of having a genuine debate in our country on the influence of ethnic pressure groups over public offices. [. . .] [Instead of a debate] they preferred to fire him, as though we lived in a State of divine right or simply of totalitarianism.[16]
In terms of direct political influence, Blanrue notes that 113 out of 577 members of parliament (including 18 presidents and vice-presidents of committees) and 64 out of 343 senators are members of the France-Israel parliamentary friendship groups, making them among of the largest and most influential such groups in the National Assembly.[17]

More generally, Blanrue notes that while French media and politicians do sometimes show critical debate on and negative portrayals of immigration or Islam, the issue of Judaism and Jewish ethnocentrism remains taboo. Thus, the impact of Islam on French culture and public life is often attacked, but the far greater role of Jewish culture through French Jewish elites, Hollywood, the Ivy Leagues, Jewish-American media, and anti-European oligarchs like George Soros is simply ignored.

The enormous influence of (Jewish-)American culture over France cannot be overemphasized. Blanrue notes that few French books are translated abroad, and in particular in the American market, whereas 30% of fiction books published in France are translated from English.[18] Blanrue suggests that ethnically-motivated censorship and the inbred cliques dominating the French cultural scene today are in part responsible for the decline in prestige and influence of France’s formerly “exceptional” culture.

Blanrue emphasizes the massive legal, professional, and social costs associated with being thought anti-Semitic or of otherwise offending the ruling establishment. He eloquently notes: “The trade union of doughy thought [la pensée pâteuse] hurries to speak with one voice when its vital interests are at stake.”[19] Those Blanrue cites as having been sued by Jewish ethnic lobbies include the journalist Daniel Mermet (for broadcasting radio listeners’ critiques of Israel), the Jewish writer Edgar Morin (who was critical of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon), the journalist Alain Ménargues, and the Franco-Cameroonian comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala (for a sketch making fun of Jewish fundamentalist settlers in Palestine). Blanrue writes:
Despite their various origins and careers, they have several points in common: They all become momentarily disconcerted, had to face terrible accusation of anti-Semitism (even though one of them was of Israelite confession), and had to endure the path of the cross. If they ultimately, most of the time, were vindicated before the courts, they needed great courage, patience and abnegation to resist the pressure of the opposing side.[20]
Needless to say, most people do not have the financial resources or inclination to risk being attacked in such court cases, let alone see their careers ruined. This results in a substantial chilling effect throughout the French media and cultural landscape, which is precisely the objective of these ethnic lobbies.

Censorious ethnic lobbies are not restricted to the political left. Neoconservative Jews like Gilles-William Goldnadel, while sometimes themselves supportive of French groups opposed to Muslim immigration, have also taken a leading role in suing critics of Jewish power and policing the boundaries of public discourse.

These quotes, from leading Jews and those persecuted by Jewish lobbies, give some sense of the the behind-the-scenes ethnic power dynamics in France. Actually, these dynamics are often starkly visible — for instance in the really extraordinary and sometimes overwhelming overrepresentation of Jews in French television talk shows and the “pundit class” (éditocrates). However, it seems to take time for the goyim to notice this and become uneasy about it.

These dynamics, as Blanrue documents, account for a critical part of French nationalist leader Jean-Marie Le Pen’s marginalization from French politics in the 1990s. Le Pen was not a political anti-Semite (some Jews, especially some evicted from French Algeria by the Muslim Arabs, were members of his party), and he was not a political racist (his second-in-command Bruno Gollnisch is married to a Japanese woman). Nor did he advocate an authoritarian ideology. He was merely a populist cornering the “right-of-the-center-right” electoral market share. Jewish groups were hostile to him long before he famously termed the gas chambers “a point of detail of the Second World War,” which historians should be free to study critically. Nevertheless, his stubborn refusal to bow before the universal postwar civil religion of the Shoah effectively made him a political untouchable.

Finally, these ethnic power dynamics no doubt account, in a significant measure, for the decline of Gaullist France from a proud and self-consciously independent power, to a mere lackey of the Israeli-American Empire. But I would personally add, that if France has become so influenced by these ethnic networks, it is also because the country
— is increasingly dominated by egalitarian and individualist values
— and was dangerously vulnerable to such networks in the first place. 

[1]Charles de Gaulle, “An Elite People, Self-Confident and Dominating,” November 27, 1967 press conference, translation published by North American New Right, December 2, 2014.
[2]Paul-Éric Blanrue, Sarkozy, Israël et les Juifs (Embourg, Belgium: Oser Dire, 2009), 118-119. Aron reproduced the letter in his memoirs.
[3]Ibid, 113.
[4]Ibid, 152.
[5]Ibid, 143.
[6]Ibid, 103.
[7]Consider this example of extreme ethnically-motivated context denial: “They often say that Jewish settlements in the occupied territories are an obstacle to peace. Perhaps. But one can also reverse the statement. Why shouldn’t Jews be able to live in the West Bank and Gaza, given that one million Arabs live in Israel?” Ibid, 104.
[8]Arno Klarsfeld, “Revenir sur le droit du sol est une grave erreur !,” Le Monde, June 15, 2015.
[9]Blanrue, Sarkozy, 179.
[10]Ibid, 169.
[11]Ibid, 170.
[12]The Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France (CRIF). See Guillaume Durocher, “The Culture of Critique in France: Anne Kling’s Books on Jewish Influence,” The Occidental Observer, May 24, 2015.
[13]Paul-Éric Blanrue, Jean-Marie, Marine et les Juifs (Embourg, Belgium: Oser Dire, 2014), 144.
[14]Blanrue, Sarkozy, 28.
[15]Ibid, 28.
[16]Ibid, 147.
[17]Ibid, 145-46.
[18]Ibid, 149.
[19]Ibid, 13.
[20]Ibid, 165.