Apr 4, 2016

Funding the Enemy: War and Welfare

via Right On

If the welfare state doesn’t end in Europe, the welfare state will end Europe. And future historians will look back on the way the West ended and think we were all out of our goddamn minds.

As the dust is still clearing in Brussels and Pakistan (killing kids on Easter… stay classy, ISIS) and wherever else the nut jobs hit before this goes to press—as the Left signals their concern that all these dead bodies and raped orificia might feed an irrational fear of suicide bombers and rapists—the press is busy lecturing European security agencies about their incompetence. They could have stopped all these attacks somehow, if only they knew how to do their jobs!

You know what? I feel sorry for the security agencies, bumbling though they may allegedly be. From where I’m sitting, their job looks freakin’ impossible. According to Pew, over a third of French Muslims think suicide bombing is at least on occasion acceptable (and among the 18-30 crowd, it’s an eye-watering 42 percent).

How would you like it to be your job to root out terrorists when a third of the base population—of whose diversity and feelings you must always be respectful—would be happy to house and hide the assholes you’re looking for?

Meanwhile the media have kept stumping for not just bringing more of the terrorist-supporting population in, but feeding and housing them at the expense of the very government budget that must also fund security operations.

I know, only a bad person would ever suggest that you end welfare, and no educated European wants to be a bad person. But what you are accomplishing by being too nice is very bad indeed, Europe. Because if you do not end the welfare state, you’re going to have a violent genocide, one way or another.

Europeans, if you STILL have yet to notice, you are not just at war. You are in a war with multiple fronts, and one of the fronts is ON YOUR SOIL.

But it seems that most of you are not only unaware of the fact that you’re fighting a war on your own soil, you are engaging in the most bizarre and suicidal form of collusion I’ve ever heard of. I’m not even talking about providing the enemy with unobstructed access to the citadel, although that’s weird enough.

I’m talking about the fact that you are their supply train. The welfare state is allowing an enemy force to squat in your capitals, colonizing swathes of your territory, without having to worry about how to bring in provender to its troops. The welfare state allows the enemy the free time to sit around and plan, while the native population spends 40 hours a week at work, feeding them.

Yes, bien sûr, not all Muslims. (And look, that subway stop over there isn’t blowing up today!) But the extremists have engineered a situation in which someone must be treated unfairly. Because they expect the West to take the burden upon itself and hope for the best. Because they think we’re stupid—and since we’re acting like we think we’re invincible and immune to the forces of history, we certainly do look stupid. What do you say we try surprising them? Many among the flood of migrants are probably great people who deserve help. But you can’t tell who they are by looking, and you cannot be fair to those individuals without being unfair to the individuals among the native population who are going to die in the next attack.

I understand your quandary, Europe. I’ve always tried to be a nice girl myself. But sometimes, assholes take advantage of you to the point where you’d be a suicidal fool to keep on giving. And when you strike back, it feels really, really good.

The last time I was in Paris, I went to a museum exhibit on the Vichy government’s collaboration with the Nazis. The display-goers were mostly older people, who murmured politely about the terrible shame this collusion with the enemy represented. Lots of downcast eyes.

But these same cultured sort of museum-goers are the goodthink-enforcers who shame anyone who wants to close the floodgates on an ideology that’s just as mad and expansionist as Hitler. Those who collaborated with the Nazis at least had the excuse that they had no choice (unless they wanted to live in the sewer under Paris with Simone de Beauvoir). They went along to save their lives in the face of a military defeat, in which they had at least made an honest try.

This time, the collabos are afraid of mere words—words like “bigot,” whose definition has been expanded beyond all significance. Meanwhile, the army you are feeding and housing repeatedly and proudly inform you that they consider you subhuman. ISIS has bragged that it is using the immigrant crisis to plant its operatives in your midst. Why aren’t you listening to them? Just because they don’t look like Nazis?

The mainstream media have a lockdown on language when it comes to Molenbeek, the now-infamous neighborhood in Brussels which is connected to such a ridiculous array of ills that it’s practically a White person. And yet it is continually called a “low-income community” by the media, in a morally unspeakable attempt to slap a sheen of sociological angel dust over mass murder.

No, call Molenbeek and Saint-Denis what they are: forward military bases. And you are supplying them.

To be honest, getting rid of welfare is not going to stop the terrorist attacks completely, or at least not all at once. There’s already too much damage done; there are too many Muslim extremists in the West, many who enjoy citizenship; they continually infect others, and some of them may well be crazy enough to not mind starving (or stealing) as long as they get to keep plotting. No doubt there will be a spate of intensified attacks and blackmails when you tell them the goody train is about to go off the rails; but they will taper off (you can only wear the holy explosive belt once, after all) and the West will be left with the moderate and productive Muslims who emigrated years ago to escape all the bomb-loving in the first place.

The only way to cut off the violence immediately would be to deport every single individual who adheres to that faith—and that’s a poor solution, practically, ethically, and politically. It’s too drastically unfair to one side, and anyway Europeans still get a stomachache when they see a cattle car. And in my opinion, any pie-in-the-sky solution that involves packing people up and dividing them into ethnostates is so impractical that it’s hard to believe anyone is proposing it in earnest. Have you ever been near a college town on moving day? Can you imagine that on a worldwide basis?

So you must end the welfare state— force the jihadis to do something with their time besides plot and proselytize—and hold firm as the violence flares and tapers.
Or, I suppose, you could pack it in.

Maybe you think you don’t deserve to go on, because of your ancestors and colonialism. But if you must base your decisions on dead people, think about this: Where did the French learn about empire from? Rome. (Why do you think Napoleon called himself an emperor?) And where did the Romans learn it from? Carthage and Athens. And Athens learned (or didn’t learn, as the tragic case may be) from the Persians. Who were kittens compared to their predecessors, the Assyrians. Who came from guess where?

If you must blame dead people for colonialism—even if it weren’t blindingly illogical to pillory the living as proxies for the dead, none of whom can actually be punishedblame the dead Middle Easterners who broadcast the idea in the first place. Post-Renaissance European colonialism was a blip on the graph, and then Europe decided colonialism was wrong… except, apparently, when it happens to them.

A Super-Majority of Americans Believe Non-White Immigration Is Destroying the Country

via White GeNOcide Project

A new survey by A.T. Kearney, a management consulting firm, says that 61% of Americans believe “continued immigration into the country jeopardizes the United States.

65% of the baby boomer generation agreed with the statement, and 55% of millennials agreed.

Despite this, the Obama regime, as well most presidential candidates, refuse to accept the average American viewpoint and instead enforce their elitist open borders agenda.

The common man and woman must turn to alternative parties and candidates if they want their views to be heard, which would explain the victories of Donald Trump’s campaign.

Because of this agenda being carried out for several decades now, America has 61 million legal immigrants including nearly 16 million illegal ones.

White people have been pushed down to about 60% of the population, and the younger generation is minority White.

This all started with the 1965 immigration act, which according to Ted Kennedy, “will not flood our cities with immigrants” or “will not upset the ethnic mix of our society.
It was a lie. You see, the elites want to “globalize” or “diversify” America, and so do the elites of other formerly White countries.

A minority White America is their goal. But the thing is, their “diversity” agenda is actually a code word for White genocide.

A Transvaluation of 4chan

via Angry White Dude

Years ago, I felt the need to express my disgust with 4chan–particularly, Anonymous and /b/. I considered it emblematic of the degenerate madness of millennials–a sewer of grotesquerie, perversion, and self-infatuation.

Today? Today my sentiments toward 4chan have swung 180°–I now view it not as a mere cesspit of degeneracy (which it most certainly is), but as the crucible that has forged tomorrow’s warriors for Western Civilization.

(Note I use the past perfect “has forged” above, as I believe 4chan is not what it used to be. More on that later.)

As Nietzsche had observed, “But it is the same with man as with the tree. The more he seeks to rise into the height and light, the more vigorously do his roots struggle earthward, downward, into the dark, the deep–into evil.” While our universities coddle and bend over backwards to accommodate ever-more hysterical, triggered-happy, overgrown infants who literally cry and retreat to their “safe spaces” when exposed to innocuous words (such as “Trump 2016”) or images (such as the Confederate flag) that they have been trained to view as “offensive”, 4chan provided an outlet for the men amongst the boys to congregate and hash it out, no holds barred. Put another way: Our universities are little more than really, really expensive ball pits for overgrown children, whereas 4chan was Fight Club for men sick of our degenerate, emasculating, pathetic, weak, groveling, suicidal culture. (Which is why many of you probably never heard of it, at least not when it first started out years ago. For the first rule of /b/ [the heart of 4chan] was, like Fight Club, do not talk about it.)

From that fiery inferno of anonymous online debate, replete with the most offensive images you could imagine, arose a subset of millennials incapable of being offended, of imperturbable sangfroid, who are insanely quick with rapier retorts both online and IRL, and whose capacity for destruction of SJWs and the sick “culture” they create is like nothing we “oldfags” can imagine–an indomitable amalgam of incredible talent, high IQ, broad erudition, and hilarious, withering ridicule.

And, like Donald Trump, the more you attack them, the stronger they get.

In fact, Donald Trump’s popular support is, in my estimation, largely driven by these young White Warriors. All those hilarious Trump memes you see on Facebook and such? They’re coming from /pol/, 4chan’s politically incorrect board. (In fact, pretty much all memes–at least, all the good ones–you’ve seen floating around the internet for the past decade can be attributed to 4chan users.)

But 4chan is, as alluded to above, not what it once was. Amongst other key changes, its founder–a geeky kid named Christopher Poole (known more affectionately by his 4chan handle, “moot”)–has walked away from his muse and sold his soul to the antithesis of 4chan: Google. (Not that I blame him–Google no doubt offered him a pretty penny to join their evil ranks, and the poor kid never made a dime off 4chan and I’m sure his mother was on him to get a real job and move out of her tiny NYC apartment.)

But I don’t believe that matters: Anon has grown up, and, like Poole, has left the 4chan nest and started their own adventures.

And they’re making their mark.
The Trump phenomenon is only the tip of the iceberg. What is happening is that these graduates of anything-goes slug-fests are bringing their tactics to bear upon the sociopolitical milieu as we speak.

They are no longer “anon”; they are now “shitlords” (a term of endearment co-opted from feminazis’ handbook of epithets against men), and they are busting down one “safe space” after another and shining the light on these SJW cretins so all the world can see what a bunch of ridiculous, craven paper tigers they really are.

They are destroying Orwellian political correctness. They are hacking university printers and remotely printing off, en masse, the most “triggering” material they can produce. They are “troll-storming” cucked-out, neocon rags like National Review Online. In short, they are fighting back. Lord almighty–someone’s actually fighting back!

They are, in a way, Vikings loosed upon an effeminate populace…and it is a glorious thing to behold.

While our debt-saddled, highly indoctrinated, precious little snowflakes pride themselves on their rootlessness, blowing in whichever direction TPTB decide to blow them, 4chan’s best and brightest stand tall, strong, and unyielding. They shall not be bowed.

In sum: Where once I saw 4chan as the death knell of Western Civilization, now I believe that it may prove to have been the modern agora in which Western Civilization found the will to rebirth itself, once again.

The fight is not over, my friends. In fact, I believe it’s just getting started.

Mission Matters

via Atlantic Centurion

Any worthwhile political movement or campaign needs a compelling mission or animating purpose of some kind, and it has to go beyond getting elected. The mission does not have to explain the minutiae of ideology or policy implementation, rather it must encapsulate them. No matter how vague or platitude-laden this mission statement is, it has to resonate with people and it has to be a future-state. “I like how things were yesterday” has rarely been good enough in the battle of ideas.

For liberals in the United States, a mission statement is easily produced and promulgated. Formally, it is to promote equality and inclusion among Americans of all backgrounds. In practice, it is building a coalition of ethnic minorities and leftist Whites to outvote a former conservative White majority, but that is beside the point. Today, some debate exists over the implementation of the liberal mission in the United States, but not the principles of the mission itself. It is a debate over means, namely whether the vehicle of liberalism will be a corporate-supported, bureaucratic enforcement of social liberalism and ‘anti-racism’ via federal institutions, or a European-style social democracy promoting those same policies via left-wing populism, with which they can run through the minoritization of Anglo-Americans and the dispensing of more gibsmedats.

On the other hand, mainline conservatives have a much harder time articulating their mission. In general, the formal mission probably sounds like to support freedom and limited government. In practice, we see something much more confused and convoluted, and which relies on reaction rather than ambition. Freedom means anything and therefore nothing; seldom can tangible results on freedom be delivered by conservatives, with firearms ownership being the most notable exception. Limited government is a relative term and is just taken to mean that policy initiatives championed by liberals should be opposed long enough that conservatives can claim credit for opposing them. It is all a show, one in which conservatives are roped to the back of their own stolen car and taken for a ride down Cuckold Boulevard.

Another major problem for the mainline conservative mission is that it isn’t really a competitor to the liberal one. No matter who wins in the short-term, the country will move left in the long-term and become browner. Just what are we conserving exactly? The conservative mission is not an existential threat to the liberal one, but an annoyance. Liberals will repudiate the conservative claims about ‘freedom’ and limited government because those make it harder for the state to provide equalizing services to target populations. And liberals are essentially correct in saying that a smaller government respecting property rights more literally would be bad, bad for the available pool of gibsmedats necessary for liberals to be elected by their coalition. The liberal response assumes there is bite to the conservative bark though; there is hardly one since in practice most of their disagreements outside of guns, abortion, and same-sex marriage are on paper only.

What do mainline conservatives have to say about the liberal mission of equality and inclusion (which will lead to White minoritization)? Jack shit, that’s what. This is not only a pity but treachery considering most conservative voters are, have been, and will likely continue to be White. Cuckservatives are shooting themselves in the foot by doing nothing to counter their opponents. They fear taking too extreme a position relative to the liberal mission, either because they don’t want to be challenged by their enemies or would genuinely side with them when it comes down to the wire.

The common saying, “If you aren’t with us then you’re against us,” decently describes the relationship between the liberal and conservative missions. An impartial observer would conclude they are not that different. A conservative mission that provides nothing to people beyond the formula to stand for the current year minus one is a de facto subsidiary of the liberal mission, which is to make sure every White oppressor knows what year it is. The key difference is that it is aimed at a different market, and with less alienating rhetoric. Don’t worry about changing demographics; all those brown people will become just like you, i.e. English-speaking taxpayers. Too bad you won’t be around to see it.

This is the true power of the hegemony afforded by our occupation: the choice for the despised White man is fast-tracked destruction or a slower progression. The mission of both parties has nothing to do with the health and prosperity of the founding and majority stock of the country. There is no choice C to slam the brakes and search the train for your assailant. That mission is yet to be taken up.

Jewish Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump, Part 3: Hitler Comparisons Rampant—But also, Weirdly, Signs of Second Thoughts

via The Occidental Observer

Donald J. Trump’s speech last week to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC] went astonishingly well. Once again Trump showed excellent political instincts, effectively attacking Obama and Clinton as insufficiently pro-Israel. [11 times Donald Trump won the AIPAC conference, by Ron Kampeas, JTA.org, March 21 2016] As a Trump supporter critical of the role of Israel in U.S. politics, I wrote off his pandering (softening his position on “neutrality” in brokering Israeli-Palestinian peace and on Jerusalem as Israel’s capital) as a marker of Jewish power and kept reminding myself that Trump—uniquely among the candidates—has made many sensible comments on Middle East policy, including especially condemning the Iraq war and US policy in Syria.

But the controversy over Donald Trump among American Jews rages on. (In fact the walkout at Breitbart over Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski’s alleged rough handling of reporter Michelle Fields—for which he has now, rather remarkably, been charged—seems to be driven at least in part by a Jewish anti-Trump faction).

It’s at the point now where the Hitler comparisons and over-the-top Op-Eds are literally too numerous to list. As The Daily Beast’s Matt Wilstein wrote March 11, “this was the week that it became utterly acceptable to compare Donald Trump to Hitler.”[Sarah Silverman’s Adolf Hitler Rejects Trump Comparisons on ‘Conan’].

Front page of Mort Zuckerman’s New York Daily News, March 6, 2016

But of course, that’s how the Main Stream Media has always worked: repetition, repetition, repetition—the hoped-for result being the creation of “Trump = Hitler,” “Trump = racist,” psychological reflexes that will engender guilt in enough voters to sway the election.

Abe Foxman, although no longer head of the Anti-Defamation League, continues to show the hair-trigger anti-Trump reflexes of the activist Jewish community. Thus at a rally in Florida, Trump simply asked the crowd to raise their hands if they intended to vote for him. So lots of people raised their hands in all sorts of ways, some outstretched, some with crooked elbow—the latter including Trump himself.

Obviously, if Trump really wanted to channel Hitler, he could have come up with a much better imitation. But all this was too much for Foxman:
“As a Jew who survived the Holocaust, to see an audience of thousands of people raising their hands in what looks like the ‘Heil Hitler’ salute is about as offensive, obnoxious and disgusting as anything I thought I would ever witness in the United States of America,” he told The Times of Israel.
“We’ve seen this sort of thing at rallies of neo-Nazis. We’ve seen it at rallies of white supremacists. But to see it at a rally for a legitimate candidate for the presidency of the United States is outrageous.”

Foxman is absolutely positive that Trump was well aware that he was tapping into the latent Nazism of the crowd, because, as every American knows, raising your hand in a big crowd can only mean only one thing:
“It is a fascist gesture,” Foxman said. “He is smart enough—he always tells us how smart he is—to know the images that this evokes. Instead of asking his audience to pledge allegiance to the United States of America, which in itself would be a little bizarre, he’s asking them to swear allegiance to him.” --Ex-ADL Chief: Trump’s ‘raise-your-hand’ gambit was deliberate Nazi-style ‘fascist gesture’ By Eric Cortellessa, Times Of Israel, March 7, 2016
Right. Like every candidate ever, Trump wants people to vote for him, and getting them to commit to it by raising their hands is a smart move psychologically because it makes the hand-raiser feel a subtle sense of obligation to carry through with the pledge, which Trump reinforced by saying right after the pledge: “Don’t forget you all raised your hand, you swore. Bad things happen if you don’t live up to what you just did.”

Of course, there was a bit of humor here, but also an attempt to inoculate the crowd against the very well-funded ad campaign Trump was enduring. Trump was well aware that, when the crowd went home, they would be deluged with millions of dollars’ worth of anti-Trump ads—ads portraying him, as noted by the New York Times, as a “a liberal, a huckster, and a draft dodger.”[ Money Pours In as Move to Stop Donald Trump Expands, By Matt Flegenheimer and Maggie Haberman, March 6, 2016]

Trump, after labeling the accusation “ridiculous,” said “he would look into ending [the practice]” Maybe a good move, but it certainly won’t stop the “Trump-as-fascist” industry. What really scares activists like Foxman is that they sense that their power to shape public discourse is waning:
“What scares me is he’s broken all these taboos and it’s helped him. … That frightens me. It frightens me that there are all these things that we’ve worked so hard on, but one after another he breaks these taboos and the people applaud him and come back for more.”
And sure enough, Trump won Florida easily, despite Foxman playing the Holocaust victimization card.

New York Times columnist David Brooks, who is usually considered a neoconservative, saw Trump’s tactic the same way on Meet the Press (March 6):
If we’re going to get Trump, we might as well get the Nuremberg rallies to go with it. The number one trait that associates or correlates with Trump’s support is authoritarianism, a belief in authoritarian leadership style. [Nazi Card: David Brooks Suggests Trump Staging ‘Nuremberg Rallies’ By Mark Finkelstein, Media Research Center, March 6, 2016
(Brooks’ comment on authoritarianism have been called into question by a poll described by two political scientists, Wendy Rahn and Eric Oliver.  They found that Trump voters are actually populists whose main characteristics are distrust of elites, like Brooks and his employer, and American nationalism—attitudes that make a lot of sense given the themes of Trump’s campaign. [Trump’s voters aren’t authoritarians, new research says. So what are they? Washington Post, March 6, 2016]

Besides the reactions of Jewish organizations, many prominent Jews who have used their media access to assault Trump. In my first article on Trump and the Jews, I noted “We can only imagine the deluge of propaganda if Trump is seen as having a real chance of winning. By comparison, the 1964 ads predicting nuclear Armageddon if Barry Goldwater was elected will be small potatoes.”

And indeed, media critic Howard Kurtz subsequently wroteMedia warnings against Trump shift from aggressive to apocalyptic”.  [Fox News, March 8, 2016]
Speaking of apocalyptic, David Brooks, although not representing an official Jewish organization, is certainly a strongly identified Jew with a lofty perch in the elite media. His attack on Trump gave the impression that he searched a thesaurus for every possible negative adjective he could find:
Donald Trump is an affront to basic standards of honesty, virtue and citizenship. He pollutes the atmosphere in which our children are raised. He has already shredded the unspoken rules of political civility that make conversation possible. …
As the founders would have understood, he is a threat to the long and glorious experiment of American self-government.  He is precisely the kind of scapegoating, promise-making, fear-driving and deceiving demagogue they feared.[ No, Not Trump, Not EverNYT,  March 29, 2016]
These last comments clearly refer to Trump’s comments on immigration—the common denominator of Jewish angst.

The theme, over and over again, is that Trump represents opposition to the post-1965 ideology that America should be open to immigration of all peoples and cultures as a moral imperative (often invoking “American values”) without regard to American interests—often with reminders that the immigration restriction enacted in the 1920s opposed Jewish interests because of the refugee crisis of the 1930s.

Similarly, the Anti-Defamation League’s new National Director   Jonathan Greenblatt, made it clear that immigration/diversity issues are their main problem with Trump’s candidacy:
In light of Trump’s penchant to slander minoritiesslur refugees, dismiss First Amendment protections and cheer on violence, some in the Jewish community have said that Trump should not be invited to speak or that attendees should walk out during his remarks in protest. This is not surprising, as the Jewish community has long placed a premium on promoting values of tolerance and building a pluralistic and more diverse society—values that seem at odds with Trump’s message on the campaign trail. …
We have decided to redirect the amount of funds that Trump contributed to ADL over the years [$56,000] specifically into anti-bias education programs that address exactly the kind of stereotyping and scapegoating he has injected into this political season. --Anti-Defamation League: We Are Redirecting All of Trump’s Donations, Time.com,  March 20, 2016
To me as a connoisseur, the most interesting anti-Trump article was James Kirchick’s Why Donald Trump is turning me liberal. [The Tablet March  14, 2016] Again, Kirchick’s main problem is Trump’s violation of immigration orthodoxy, but here framed oddly as somehow violating the US Constitution:
I find Trump’s contempt for the basic functions of democracy—in particular the First Amendment to the United States Constitution—absolutely appalling. His call to ban all Muslims from entering the country is fundamentally evil. Naturally, Trump has also said he’s unsure whether President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II was wrong, despite official condemnations by later American presidents.
trumpwatchRight, the Tablet’s Trump Watch Button—not too subtle invocation of the Trump=Hitler theme
Kirchick even has fantasies of a Trump-inspired military coup:
If Trump doesn’t get his way at the Republican National Convention this summer, that he will deploy some sort of organized paramilitary force—transforming Cleveland into a far-right phantasmagoria of Chicago 1968—is hardly idle speculation.
And of course the Hitler/Nazi comparisons:
Trump’s Nuremberg-esque rallies, where entranced audiences obliviously raise their right hands in impromptu loyalty oaths, evince a frisson of seething aggression. His unapologetic mockery of the physically disabled—one of the Nazis’ earliest victims—resembles a CliffsNotes’ Nietzchean will to power.
Kirchick rejects the idea that Trump is anathema to neocons because of his foreign policy.
I have a simpler, not to mention more charitable, explanation for why so many Jewish conservatives—er, “neocons”—viscerally oppose Trump: He’s a fascist demagogue.
I would split the difference on this one. The reality is that if Trump is elected, neocon hegemony in the Republican Party foreign policy Establishment and its commitment to endless wars in the Middle East would be finished—yet another reason to welcome a Trump administration. But Kirchick is doubtless correct that neocons also oppose Trump because support for liberal immigration policy and other liberal policy positions has been a staple of neocon thinking for decades.

But then Kirchick says what I thought was pretty much unmentionable in Jewish circles: that Jews have actively promoted policies on immigration and race that benefit them at the expense of the Historical American Nation:
A staple of anti-Semitic complaint from the Nazis to Donald Trump’s newfound friends in the Klan is that Jews are always and everywhere the devious orchestrators of racial integration. Rootless cosmopolitans, Jews allegedly promote immigration and miscegenation so as to bring about a more diverse society in which they can sublimate their own ethnic difference. Through this “mongrelization,” Jews will precipitate the demise of white, Christian communities, thereby destroying the last vestige of resistance to their assertion of pernicious control.
Unlike other anti-Semitic memes, there is truth in this observation, though not of course for the reasons that Nazis and white supremacists think. Jews have indeed played disproportionate roles in struggles for racial equality, from the movement against South African apartheid to the cause of civil rights in the United States. And while Jews felt called to these movements by faith, universalistic political commitments, or an innate sense of justice, doing so was also in their communal self-interest. A country that is politically pluralistic, open to new ideas and new people, ethnically diverse, and respectful of religious difference, is a country that will naturally be safer for Jews than a country that is none of these things. This, I believe, is why so many Jews, foreign policy hawks or not, innately fear Donald Trump. …
The fate of Jewish life in the West is inextricably bound to democracy, pluralism, religious tolerance and ethnic harmony. If there’s a silver lining to the resistible rise of Donald Trump, it’s that it has forced us to realize this truth. [Emphases added.]
Notice that Kirchick is saying that Trump is bad for Jews in the West where pluralism suits Jewish interests. Of course, Trump has not questioned pluralism—only the idea that immigration policy should be determined by a moral imperative rather than the interests of Americans. I suspect that Trump would also agree with me that US immigration policy should not be determined by Jewish communal interests.

Kirchick easily and unabashedly asserts Jewish interests in shaping American immigration policy, but implicitly rejects the idea that anyone else’s interests are important. This is a classic example of ethnic blindness—Kirchick is quick to condemn White Americans who reject the ethnic and cultural transformations of their countries, while ignoring the very different interests that Jews pursue in Israel which limits immigration to Jews and where 48% of Israeli Jews want Arabs out of Israel. [48% of Israeli Jews Back ‘Expulsion’ or ‘Transfer’ of Arabs, New Pew Survey Says, by Naomi Zeveloff, Forward.com, March 8, 2016].

Israeli immigration policy and attitudes toward the Arabs under its control shows there is nothing in Judaism that implies that Jews will be drawn to pro-immigration attitudes or pluralism as a result of what Kirchick claims are “faith, universalistic political commitments, or an innate sense of justice.”

Rather than the phony universalism advertised by Jewish apologists, real Jewish communal interests have always been central to my argument that Jews have been instrumental (a necessary condition) for the 1965 immigration law and the other cultural and demographic changes that have come in its wake. What makes Kirchick’s essay remarkable is that he is willing to acknowledge Jewish interests in these changes and at least hint at a major Jewish role in bringing them about.

I suspect that, from Kirchick’s point of view, Donald Trump as president is a nightmare not only because he would reassert American interests rather than Jewish interests in immigration policy, but also because Kirchick fears honest discussion of the Jewish role in shaping US immigration policy might be dangerous for Jews.

We are only beginning to see the profound changes inaugurated by this immigration revolution—especially the racialization of politics (as indicated by racially lopsided voting patterns), increases in ethnic stratification (resulting from differences in education and IQ of different immigrant groups), and social conflict (as shown by the violent, multiethnic, pro-immigration protests greeting Trump rallies, not to mention acts of terrorism).

Trump’s populist appeal is terrifying to many Jews because it threatens what has been 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. Strongly self-identified Jews have been and are at the heart of this revolution.

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, thousands of years.

The fact that Trump has continued to thrive despite the unrelenting hostility of the MSM and so many intellectuals is deeply worrying to the Jewish community because it identifies so profoundly with this revolution. If the MSM loses its effectiveness, it would be a major blow to the current status quo and to Jewish power generally. Jews are famously overrepresented in the elite media, and the elite media in turn has been a critical asset in the battle over the demographic future of the US. Because this has been a top-down revolution opposing fundamental interests of the majority of the population, the MSM strategy has been to keep immigration policy out of public consciousness.

But I want to close this survey by pointing out that this Jewish fear and loathing of Trump is now not unanimous—likely because, if in fact Trump does win, it is important for Jews not to be completely without influence. For any activist group operating in the US political system, it’s important to retain influence among all the players.

Even the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt has said No, Donald Trump is not Adolf Hitler (New York Daily News, March 16, 2016). And Trump represents an especial problem for Republican Jews—including the notorious Sheldon Adelson:
There are signs that Trump may be getting a grudging second look from Republican Jews dedicated to the proposition of keeping a Democrat out of the White House. Israel Hayom, the Israeli newspaper owned by Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas casino magnate and kingmaker in GOP politics, plastered its Wednesday front page with a photo of Trump and the headline“Within Reach.” The newspaper is known to generally reflect Adelson’s political preferences in Israel and the United States. --With Trump’s latest wins, will Jewish conservatives finally embrace him? By Ron Kampeas, JTA.org, March 16, 2016
Make no mistake about it, we are in for some very exciting times indeed.

Music, Shirts, and a New Daily Show: The Growth of the Traditionalist Worker Party

via TradYouth

I am happy to report a series of projects that are on the way for the Traditionalist Worker Party. First, we are unveiling a series of EP’s and full albums that will be released over the next few months from our talented comrades. Our Mid-Atlantic chapter leader, Paddy Tarleton, will be releasing the first music in a traditional American folk style.

These songs such as “Sovereignty and Blood Forever” and “The Ballad of Tiny Tim Wise” will have you singing along and stomping your feet. You can expect several albums this year, released by a local nationalist record label, that will be available for free download on our Party website and through purchasing from our comrades.

We know that folks are going to download music anyway, and that’s good! We need to distribute the ideas and principles of Faith, Family and Folk to as many people as possible. If you like the music, put some money in our tip jar and buy the records and share share share that music to friends, family members and coworkers. The Left has used music to promote their agenda for ages, and it’s time to take this fight to the cultural front line.

Our clothing line called “FashWear” is also on the cusp of being released. There are plenty of nationalist clothing items in the United States, but so many of the movements and heroes that inspire us haven’t been given the proper love and respect. We have shirts of Corneliu Codreanu, Sir Oswald Mosley, Jose Antonio, Francisco Franco, Ioannis Metaxas, Léon Degrelle and others going through the initial production run as we speak.

As soon as we make sure that all of the shirt designs are of the highest quality, they will be available for sale. The t-shirt pressing will be done by a married Party comrade who has a small business with his wife, so not only will your shirt purchases #Trigger Leftists far and wide, you will be supporting Party activities, new designs and helping out a fellow nationalist take care of his family; that’s win/win/win in my book.

The clothing line will include specific Party shirts, historical leaders and other designs that are guaranteed to turn heads and allow each and every one of our Party comrades and supporters to show their love of Faith, Family and Folk to the world.

Another exciting announcement is that I will be starting a Monday through Friday live show courtesy of the kind folks at The Daily Stormer and Radio Aryan. Most of you have followed my weekly shows, but we think that in order to get more content out there and be able to talk on breaking news stories, we need to go to a daily show. I will be hosting interviews, have regular cohosts, answer questions and will be also having call-in sections so you can get involved too!

On top of all of this, we are currently putting together our first edition of our Party quarterly publication that will go out to all Party comrades. We have an exciting lineup of old and new writers to give their perspective on ideology, current events and subjects relating to Traditionalism such as homeschooling and maintaining things like a garden and tips on animal husbandry for the budding farmer or even those living in a city. This will be a publication you will not want to miss.

My thanks go out to each and every one of you because without you, it wouldn’t be possible. The stakeholders of Trad Youth and Trad Worker have put a lot of time, effort and personal finances into this, but your support (financially and on the streets) has made all this possible. For anyone who isn’t yet a Party comrade, join today at www.tradworker.org!

As a comrade you in your first membership packet get a Party shirt, Party pin, leaflets, stickers and other materials; and become part of the Revolution. Each sustaining comrade gets the publication, quarterly propaganda resupply and gets connected with local activists. We are creating art, music, small businesses, and growing chapters all around this country thanks to each and every one of you. Thanks for the support, “current year” is turning out to truly be OUR YEAR!
Hail Victory my friends, the Revolution is NOW!

Europe Shall not Die

via Cambria Will not Yield

Hold then thy cross before my closing eyes;
Speak through the gloom, and point me to the skies.
Heaven’s morning breaks, and Earth’s vain shadows flee!
In life, in death, O Lord, abide with me!

-Henry Francis Lyte

I try to keep track of where the Moslems are settling, so I can brace myself and my family for the battle. But of course there is a limit to what one individual can do if the government is determined to allow Moslems to enter your country. While reading an article by a woman who reports on the Moslem invasion of America and Europe, I noted that she was of the opinion that “Europe was dead.” I certainly understand why someone would say Europe is dead, but it is not an accurate statement. Civilizations are not like vegetables, which have a certain shelf life and then they rot and decay. Civilizations are moral essences that will continue as long as human beings love their people and the civilization they built. Europe is dying (and when I say Europe, I mean all the white nations) because Europeans do not love her. If they did, she wouldn’t be dying. At every deathbed scene in print, film, and life, the person dying tells his surviving kith and kin that he loves them, and his kith and kin tell the dying man of their love. We speak to our loved one, if we are still Christian Europeans, of the sure and certain hope of the resurrection from the dead. At my father’s deathbed, my daughter sang the hymn “Abide With Me,” which Henry Francis Lyte wrote on his deathbed, and my father’s eyes lit up. He told my daughter that “Abide With Me” was the first trumpet solo he had ever played, some 75 years ago. Everything in life and death depends on that: Does He abide with us?

Bertrand Russell, the infamous atheist philosopher, was fond of pointing out that “no force of will” and “no outpouring of human sentiment” could resurrect the dead. Was he right? It would appear so. My father died despite my daughter’s love for “Pop-Pop” and despite my love for him, but did he die? St. Paul, Shakespeare, John Donne, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Sheridan Le Fanu, Walter Scott, C. S. Lewis, and the people of Christian Europe, who those bards wrote about, all believed that death was conquered by the divine love of Jesus Christ. Am I comparing apples and oranges? No, I am not. There is eternal Europe, which will live on no matter what happens to the geographical entity that has now been turned into Islamabad. But I am not referring to eternal Europe only. I am talking about the modern Europe that seems dead. We cannot say that she is dead, because the grace of God is something that works in the hearts of men, and can only be seen when it comes to fruition in their lives. We do not know what can happen if Europeans once again unite their hearts to His divine heart. What seems impossible now, that Europeans will arise and drive out the Moslem and colored barbarians from their nations, could become a reality if the love of Christ, which intensifies and purifies our love of kith and kin, once again becomes the raison d’être of the European people.

Scrooge asks the Ghost of Christmas Future why he is being shown all the hideous mistakes and wasted years of his life if it is too late for repentance. By the same token, why describe the Moslems’ and the black barbarians’ atrocities if you believe the European people are irredeemable? If that is the case, that the European people are unwilling to defend Europe, why take the trouble to tell the atrocity stories? We must come back to the deathbed scene. Is there a loving God who cares about His people? If there is, then we should not look on our existence here on earth as subject to the laws of biological determinism that social scientists such as Spengler, Unwin, and our modern cataloguers of the Europeans’ demise always refer and defer to. We should look at the spirit above the dust and ask ourselves why that spirit that transformed Europe no longer animates the European people.

The spirit of Christ crucified, Christ risen was in the blood of the antique Europeans who created Christian Europe. The spirit of Satan is in the liberals, the Moslems, and the barbarians of color. Blake vowed that he would not cease from mental fight, “Till we have built Jerusalem, In England’s green and pleasant land.” The liberals have taken a similar vow, although they have no awareness of the satanic angel that has inspired their vow: The liberals have vowed to build Satandom in Europe’s green and pleasant land. Never, never, never will the liberals cease their efforts to destroy the Christ-bearing people. They will never fight the Moslem or colored barbarians. They view all those who are non-European and non-Christian as their spiritual allies who are united with them in a holy war against the European people. If the European people – and it is not written that they will or that they will not – renounce liberalism in all of its many guises, Europe will become a green and pleasant land once again.

The main enemies of the European people, and Satan’s greatest allies, are the Christian churchmen. They have killed all Christian resistance to Satan by making Christianity into Satanism. The externalism of the Grand Inquisitors of Churchianity has made the European people into sheep-like creatures waiting to be slaughtered. It has now become de fide that a white man must hate his kith and kin and give them up as sacrificial offerings on the Babylonian altars of the liberals and their fiendish Moslem and black allies. Pope Francis said we are all God’s children as he washed the feet of a Hindu, a Moslem, and some creature of color, but what God is Pope Francis referring to? It is most certainly not the Christian God. I fail to see His image in the heathen faiths and heathen people whom Pope Francis worships. Our European literature is filled with descriptions of the good pastor and the good priest, and our church music was often written by churchmen. Besides that, many of the churchmen of the past led good and holy lives. For instance, one of the most Christ-centered men who ever walked the earth, Henry Francis Lyte, was a clergy man. But what was good in our pastors and priests of the ancient times was their commitment to Christ in and through the people of their racial hearth fire. When subsequent church men walked away from Christ and their people, we should not have followed them just because they owned the buildings and the religious costumes. Satan made his attack on the mystical body of Christ by making use of the external symbols of Christianity to serve his own end, which is the destruction of the image of God in man. St. Paul asks us, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” Should we allow ourselves to be separated from Him simply because Satan has occupied the formerly Christian churches and made the church men his stooges?

If our attack on liberalism stays within the confines of rational debate, we are not really attacking liberalism. And sadly, I’ve noted that some of the best critics of the white man’s rush to oblivion make their criticisms in the name of classical liberalism. Such critics are like the witches on the heath that Macbeth and Banquo encountered:
But ‘tis strange;
And oftentimes, to win us to our harm,
The instruments of darkness tell us truths
Win us with honest trifles, to betray’s
In deepest consequence.
If you attack liberalism in the name of liberalism, you are an unwitting instrument of the devil. Mortal men cannot go against the devil, armed with their own puny reason; they must fight the devil in the name of Christ, armed with His weapons, not with the preferred weapon of the devil. In Walt Disney’s Sleeping Beauty, Prince Phillip is armed with the shield of virtue and the sword of truth. He does not debate with Maleficent, lest he be deterred from his avowed purpose, which is to destroy her. Instead he hurls the sword of truth into her heart, and Maleficent disappears, leaving only the cross of Christ. That cross is the only reality here on this earth and in the world to come. If we have the moral vision to see that reality, and if we keep that moral vision in our hearts as we go forth to war, we will not have to write detailed reports of the enemies’ conquest of the European people. We will write of great victories over the powers of darkness and the return of the Christ-centered people to the European nations.

The code of dueling allowed the challenged party to choose the weapon. Not so with Satan. He is the challenger — he has walked right into the center of Europe and hurled down his gauntlet — but in spite of that the Europeans have allowed him to choose the weapon, and he chooses abstract reason. It all dates back to the Garden of Eden. Satan told Adam and Eve that they would not die if they violated one patently absurd commandment of God. He made his appeal to reason – God’s arbitrary command was irrational while Satan’s advice was quite rational. That is always the case. The white man is supposed to cease loving his own, because there is not supposed to be any such thing as “my own people.” But that rational rule, that there is no such thing as “my own people,” applies only to white people. Why does that rule only apply to white people? It is because the colored barbarians are wedded to Satan, so it is his will that they should love their own race (though they do not love as men should love, in and through the Savior), because whenever the colored races triumph Satan triumphs. It is different with the white race. White people formed an incorporate union with Christ. His word dwelt in their civilization. Wherever they prevailed against the heathens there was light in the darkness. Satan attacked that light by building a rational wall between the Christian faith and the white man’s love for his own people. When the European people, at the command of their clergy, agreed to stay behind that wall, apart from their racial hearth fire, Satan became the ruler of Europe through his liberal minions. Now when Europeans protest against their own extermination, they protest while adhering to the rules of Liberaldom – “Don’t break down the racial wall, don’t be violent, don’t be extreme,” the liberals command. “We will not breakdown the racial wall, we will not be violent, we will not be extreme. We will calmly and rationally state that we should have some rights within Liberaldom.” Isn’t the absurdity of that appeal obvious? The liberals want the blood of the whites, and their colored and Islamic allies are quite willing to give it to them. (1) We are not called upon to debate whether or not we should be allowed to exist, we must tell the liberals, the Moslems, and the colored barbarians that they must leave the European nations, because they belong to Satan while we belong to Christ.

You can’t debate with an enemy that has made your destruction the basis of his religion. The stentorian forces in the churches, the governments, and the various media outlets of the European people deluge us, on a daily basis, with propaganda that proclaims the evil of the white man. There is still original sin, but it only exists in the white male. And this new original sin that has become the white man’s burden can never be forgiven, because there is no divine love, and hence no human love, in the liberals’ religion. Satan does not forgive; he cannot forgive, because he is incapable of love. But if we, the despised and rejected, turn to Christ, eschewing the satanic rationalism of the liberals, we shall see that the age of miracles has not passed. Europe is on her deathbed, but she will not die if we see His cross before our eyes and love our kith and kin in and through our Lord and Kinsman, Jesus Christ.

(1) If you ever had any doubts about the satanic desire of the liberals to eradicate the white race, your doubts have now been removed by the liberals’ attacks on Donald Trump. He said that he was sick of Mexican illegals coming into the country and murdering people and that he would put a “temporary” halt to Moslem immigration. For those mild statements, he has been branded a racist and sentenced to death. The “conservatives” from Fox News and the mad-dog liberals have called for his assassination. What does that tell us about the liberal establishment? It tells us something we should already know – the liberals and their colored barbarian allies will not rest from satanic strife until they have destroyed the white race.

The Trump candidacy does not reveal to us the futility of opposing the liberals, it reveals to us the futility of opposing the liberals within the confines of their demonic, democratic system. Even if Trump lives to assume the Presidency, and I hope and pray he does, he will not be able to do anything to stop the liberal juggernaut, because he is still operating within the confines of liberalism. In for a penny, in for a pound – let’s break the democratic chains of the liberals and turn this genocidal slaughter of whites into a war for the preservation of our people and our faith.

The Conquest of Europe Begins

via Counter-Currents

Because of negligence – or rather due to the complicit will of the catastrophic Madam Merkel – over one million “refugees” have crammed themselves into Germany since 2015. With all the problems that that entails.

Unprecedented. We’ve gone from the drip-drip to the open faucet. Greece is submerged. Europe is (willingly) impotent, and her complicit elites are in thrall to a masochist logic of self-destruction. “You’ve seen nothing yet in terms of the migratory push,” says Serge Michaïlov, a researcher at IRIS [French Institute for International and Strategic Relations] (Le Figaro, February 1, 2016). 

A Planned Invasion 

And they are coming from everywhere, exploiting the Syrian civil war: from Afghanistan to sub-Saharan Africa, through all of North Africa. This is no longer a steady-flow mass migration but indeed an invasion. It risks being the beginning of the disappearance through submersion of the immemorial peoples and civilization of Europe, which is entering a genocidal project of the authorities which rule Europe against their peoples. The death, the disappearance of the European peoples is a project which, for various reasons, unites several actors: a part of Europe’s ruling elite (especially on the Left but not only, see Madam Merkel), the majority of the ethnomasochist Left-wing European intelligentsia, certain leading American political and economic circles who want to be rid of the European competitor, and obviously of Islam itself and its various governmental and religious authorities. 

I am weighing my words: This historic phenomenon is much more important and more grave than the two world wars of 1914–1918 and 1939–1945, and Soviet communism (1917–1991), and will have much more devastating consequences.

They Arrive by the Million 

In 2015, 1.2 million migrants arrived in Europe, including 270,000 minors. On the islands of Lesbos and Keos alone, in the Aegean Sea, we record 3,000 arrivals every day according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM). They are received, fed, and supported at the expense of the European Union; much better treated than the local impoverished and unemployed populations! A foreign preference . . . In Greece, a kind of waiting room for supposed refugees, 70,000 of them are counted as of the end of March, stuck in Greece. Fifty-thousand temporary housing places are planned. This summer, with fair weather, the arrivals will explode. Since the beginning of January 2016, over 350,000 migrants have already arrived in Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia, and Macedonia. This human tide of populations is greater than everything Europe has known throughout her history. 

Preferred destinations: Germany, western, and northern Europe; 2.7 million Syrians and Iraqis (and others taking advantage of the windfall) are waiting in Turkey. Without forgetting the “Italian route” which goes through the Mediterranean from Libya. In Sweden, the most submerged country of Europe, 35,000 independent minors have been welcomed in 2015, at the expense of the public, accounting for 20% of migrants who have arrived. 

Since January 1, 2016, 133,000 migrants have landed in Greece from Turkey. In 2015, 470,000 migrants went through Lesbos, largely young men and practically 100 percent Muslims. They want to rejoin their communities, already established in northern and western Europe. Taking advantage of the Europeans’ softness and weakness, the “migrants,” confident of being well within their rights, show themselves (as at Calais incidentally) demanding, aggressive, certain that they will go unpunished, undeportable, and helped by “humanitarian” organizations and the state. The invader’s logic who would be wrong to bother with trying to appear the victim. 

Islam and Europe 

Through barbed wire fences and laws, the states of central Europe and the Balkans are trying to protect Europe from the invasion by closing their borders: Macedonia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Austria, Slovenia, Serbia, Slovakia. The “Balkan route” has seen over 1 million migrants come through in 2015. In Slovakia, the sitting prime minister, Robert Fico, has remained in office following a campaign to reject the welcoming of any “Muslim” refugees. For that is indeed what is occurring: An invasion of Europe by Islam, to call things by their name, which must make Tarik Ramadan rejoice. 

These states are violating the Schengen treaty and are disobeying the orders of the bureaucrats of the European Union. For Nicolas Bay, secretary general of the FN [Front National]: “These unelected commissioners are actually criticizing the governments – which are democratically elected – of Poland and Hungary for not bending to their orders on the “welcoming of migrants” and other suicidal impulses” (in Valeurs actuelles, March 3–9, 2016, op-ed “Quand l’Union veut empêcher les nations d’Europe de se protéger”). It just goes to show that the FN can have on this topic pertinent ideas, far from their delirious socialo-statist economic program. But this negation of European civilization and its values, of its tradition and its future, by the institutions of Brussels is not due to the EU as such, as Monsieur Bay imagines, but especially due to the European governments themselves. We need to reflect upon that question. 

Erdogan’s Blackmail and its Objective 

The central problem is obviously the president of Turkey, the autocratic and Islamic “Sultan” Erdogan and his blackmail: He negotiates with Germany – France no longer counts, led by a lame duck – in exchange for billions of euros, to block immigration from Turkey, which is a fool’s bargain. He is also demanding the abolition of visas for Turkish visitors to the Schengen area and the resumption of negotiations for Turkey to join the EU. Erdogan’s goal is exactly the same as that of the Islamists and the criminal entity Daesh [the Islamic State]: To Islamize Europe, a thousand-year-old dream. 

Hans Werner Sinn, director of the Institute for Economic Research in Munich (Ifo) says: “Every time Germany does not show itself to be docile enough, the Turks let through a few more refugees into Europe.” R. T. Erdogan is following an understandable and intelligent logic which is that of the Ottoman Empire which he is trying to resurrect: The conquest of Europe under the Turkish yoke; no longer through (military) force but through cunning, that of migratory invasion and demography. 

Pope Francis and the Recognized and Accepted “Arab Invasion” 

“We can speak of an Arab invasion [in Europe], this is a social fact,” declared the Pope. But he is pleased by this! “How many invasions Europe has known! And she has always managed to surpass herself, to go forward to then find herself greater through the exchange of cultures.” (Interview with left-wing French Catholics, in La Vie hebdo.) 

Naïveté? Cynicism? Blindness? Or a mix of the three? In any case, the Pope, in his position on the supposed benefits of “invasions,” is showing a total misunderstanding of history, either by ignorance or ideological dogmatism. He calls bloody confrontations an “exchange” . . . These statements reflect a strange similarity with the Trotskyite ideas. Hence the suspicions on his belonging to the South-American circles of “liberation theology.” His statements, in any case, resemble those of certain leftist Islamophile intellectuals. 

Pope Francis has already signaled his moral encouragements for Muslim immigration in Europe and his opposition to any damming, in the name of a somewhat delirious conception, “gone mad,” of Christian charity. The current Catholic hierarchy, in a suicidal way and in opposition to the opinions of the “Catholic people,” has a similar position. In contrast the religious authorities of the Jewish community are steering clear of taking such positions, because of the obvious correlation between Islamization and anti-Semitism.[1] As to the persecution of the Christians of the Middle East, they are written off . . . 

Lucidity of Muslim Intellectuals 

The most lucid and courageous are often found among the male and female Arabo-Muslim intellectuals, as they know what they are talking about. For example, the Algerian writer and journalist Kamel Daoud, dragged in the mud by the leftists and the intelligentsia. Having won the Goncourt Prize for his novel Meursault, contre-enquête, he was accused of Islamophobia, a cardinal sin, and is the victim of a fatwa from Islamists and a media lynching from the left-wing French collaborationist intelligentsia. In an interview published by La Repubblica (“Cologne, lieu de fantasmes”), and translated by Le Monde, he explains the sexual assaults committed against German women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve by immigrants and Arab “refugees,” by the sexual frustration of the Arabo-Muslim male. 

He dared to assert: “Sex is the greatest misery in the world of Allah. To the point that it gives birth to this porno-Islamism which make up the speeches of Islamist preachers to recruit their followers: Description of a paradise closer to the bordello than to reward for pious people, the fantasy of virgins for the kamikaze.” Kamel Daoud is actually accused of apostasy by the Islamists and their French collaborators. He is a traitor, a “harki” [name for Algerians serving with the French Army during the Algerian War of Independence]. “The charge of Islamophobia today serves as an inquisition,” he says. 

Similarly, Mohammed Sifahoui, author of Pourquoi l’islamism séduit-il? writes: “The useful idiots of left as well as the right are preventing [. . .] in the name of an idiotic cultural relativism the criticism and the discussion of fanatical dogmas.” He is also victim of attacks from his co-religionists as well as the intelligentsia. Another controversial Algerian writer is Boualem Sansal, not well seen by the authorities of his country, who provoked outrage with his futuristic novel 2084, describing “a world dominated by radical Islamism.” 

The Algerian Boualem Sansal’s Predictions 

The latter told the magazine Vzebek et Rika: “soon we will all be Muslims, so, study your Koran.” In the Express: “Islamism has found in the Maghrebi community in France, which is very ethnicized [communautarisée], wonderfully fertile ground” (February 24, 2016). 

With the fall of oil and gas prices, Algeria is going into recession, because its regime, corrupt and incompetent, has the country live practically only on profits from fossil fuel exports. To buy social peace and compensate for endemic unemployment, the regime subsidizes and “greases” the population, according to Sansal. He foresees an explosion in Algeria where Islamists will be on the verge of taking power. 

“A Syrian scenario is possible in Algeria,” he told Le Figaro (February 24, 2016). For him, his country is a time bomb. “Bouteflika has ceded the managing of the people to the Islamists. In the small towns and villages, they are masters of the field and enforce their terrifying theocratic rules. [. . .] Algeria is running towards chaos. [. . .] A scenario of slavery, of terror, on the Syrian model, seems to me perfectly credible. [. . .] The political problem will be transformed into a religious problem and exported beyond Algeria’s borders into Europe and particularly into France.” France is therefore threatened by a new wave of immigration, a massive flight from Algeria. Which obviously enters into the Islamists’ plans. 

But Sansal goes further: “Little by little, the Muslim world is being rebuilt and finding again its first ambitions and its hegemonic will. The borders of the West are beginning to be abolished because now political Islam is open spaces for itself in London, Paris, and Brussels. We can consider that in 30 years Islamism will govern the whole of the Muslim world which will have been unified. In 60 years, it will go to the conquest of Western civilization.” Long before, probably . . . Sansal is attacked and threatened in his own country. “Now, fear is everywhere, it follows me, in Algiers as in Paris.” 

The Worst-Case Scenario Is Probable 

But these lucid and courageous Muslim intellectuals are in the minority. The pacified and reformed Islam which they wish for is a utopia, contradicted by observed reality. The most extraordinary of paradoxes is the betrayal of certain European elites which are complicit and organizing mass immigration and Islamization, which opposes lucid Arabo-Muslim minorities. It is the same setup as between 1940 and 1944: Collaboration; or closer to us: the “briefcase-carriers” of the FLN [whites who would carry bombs in briefcases for the National Liberation Front’s terrorist attacks in the Algerian War of Independence].

The strength of this invading migratory flow is based on the feeling of pity provoked by the media of the system in a fickle and emotional public opinion towards the “refugees,” especially the boat people who are drowning.

These millions of migrants, who are 95% Muslims, from the Middle East, Afghanistan, North Africa, and black Africa who are landing Europe, adding themselves to the masses already present, are obviously going to import their disorder and their chaos. Islam will be at the center of this explosion which will come soon. Ivan Rioufol, in La guerre civile qui vient [The Coming Civil War], raises this likely hypothesis. We must prepare for the worst.

1. On this Faye is inaccurate. In September 2015, the Grand Rabbi of France Haïm Korsia demanded that France have a “civic and human awakening” to welcome the refugees as the “cradle of human rights.” Naturally Korsia would never demand that his homeland of Israel make such an unreciprocated altruistic commitment. “Réfugiés : l’appel du grand rabbin de France,” Le Point, September 6, 2015.
This plea was then repeated to the Catholic daily La Croix:
We cannot commemorate the tragedy of the Shoah [. . .] and remain silent in the face of other tragedies in the world! [. . .] For the refugees, we welcome them first, we talk later. That is the order in which this must happen. [. . .] The Muslims arriving have a good level of education [sic], like the foreign doctors who tend to us in our hospitals. To reject them just before they arrive would be a denial of who we are. The country [that is, France], inherently, is a land of welcome [. . .]. Tsarfat, France in Hebrew, means “melting pot.” [. . .] [French] [s]ociety is on the edge of imploding.
Can anyone claim the grand rabbi of France is not being disingenuous and doesn’t know exactly the implications of what he is advocating? “Haïm Korsia : ‘Notre société est au bord de l’implosion,” La Croix, September 30, 2015. – GD

David Duke Makes Bernie Feel the Bern of His Own Jewish Commie Racism!

via DavidDuke.com

Listen Now

Today Dr. Duke offered first aid to those who “feel the Bern.” He pointed out that Bernie Sanders has an openly communist past, having volunteered at a Stalinist kibbutz in Israel and then running as an elector (member of the electoral college that under the Constitution actually elects the president) as a candidate  of the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party. He also is an unapologetic Zionist who consistently supports the racist state of Israel.

Dr. Duke pointed out that racism against whites isn’t even worthy of mention in the Zio media. Bernie Sanders can make the assertion that white people don’t know what it is to be poor, and nobody points out the racism of that statement. The fact is that whites face discrimination and prejudice in a variety of ways, yet if they so much as try to express their legitimate grievances they are branded as racist.

This is a great show to send to people under the subject heading “Feel the Bern.”

Crime and Punishment

via Radix

Richard Spencer discusses Trump's abortion and "punish women" controversy.

Cultural Appropriation, Racial Magnanimity, and Aspirational Black Futurism

via Alternative Right

Recently a young Jewish man was stopped at one of America’s many institutions of higher political correctness, and castigated for the "hate crime" of "cultural appropriation," as he was observed to be in possession of an extremely straggly set of dreadlocks. This is a style of hair normally associated with people of sub-Saharan African ancestry.

After film of this incident made it onto social media and went viral, we had the normal knee-jerk reactions from those on the Right:
(a) How dare a Black woman in clothes and using the English language and political correctness (all three invented by non-Blacks) castigate anyone for "cultural appropriation"!
(b) Ha ha! Dreadlocks! What a doofus!
My view included and embraced the above two views, but also included the following insight:
Yes, I fully understand the possessiveness of the poor, the tenacity with which they hang on to their paltry rags while trying to steal a few garments from the rest of us. 
"Black" the identity that that young woman has been tricked into identifying with by people like George Soros and his forebears, is essentially fake. And as for the group on which it is based – one of the three main races of the human species, no less – it has produced almost nothing of worth compared to every other group in the World. Even the numerically tiny Australian Aborigines are a dab hand at abstract expressionist painting and rocking those didgeridoos.

Let's face it, dreadlocks, bones through noses, twerking, and selling your prisoners of war to overseas cotton farmers are not much to base a sense of identitarian pride on. So, I get the "muh dreadlocks" possessiveness-out-of-poverty angle, and I understand why that young woman is so incensed by some "Jigger" stealing that particular signifier of almost nothing. If I stole a beggar's last cent, I'd also expect a minor riot or at least some vomit-flecked invective.

As a Scotsman, the most innovative and inventive segment per capita of the White race, I happen to be in the position polar opposite to that of the young lady. Almost everything everybody does every day is some form of "cultural appropriation" from my intellectually and scientifically fecund ethnic peers. It would not only be exhausting but impossible to get enraged by every infraction of non-Scots on the multifarious products of the Scottish genius. For this reason, I prefer to adopt an attitude of benign magnanimity. Bask in it, ye of less talented races and ethnicities!

Stupid as this "Dreadlockgate" incident clearly is, it touches on some important points and raises some interesting issues regarding identity, what drives it, and what it is based on. Those in our movement usually hold identity to be an unquestioned good, but identity implies glorification, and glorification of paltriness or nothingness – as in the case of so-called "Black" achievements – is an evident absurdity.

Glorious sand!
This has always been the problem with "Black Pride" movements – they are planting the desert. As we on the Alt-Right know, equality is the Grand Lie. Some groups are simply destined to have little or nothing to be proud of, except pride itself. Pride, connected to great acts and achievements, whether in the collective or individual sense, is not a sin; rather the Christian ethic of seeing justified pride as a sin is itself the worst kind of sin. But being proud of nothing except the act of being proud is an obvious sin and a source of infinite strife.

As for that poor Black woman, yes, cling to that ugly hairstyle by all means, even though it seems best suited to homeless people with limited access to running water, but seeking pride in such things is like seeking sustenance from the wind and salvation in Hell. If the group you belong to is not worthy of pride and a positive identity, then your only authentic option may be the individual route but that is never easy.

There is one other thing that should be mentioned. Most of those Blacks obsessed with "Black pride" tend to be racially mixed – in fact (and let's call this "Liddell's Law") the more mixed the more proud they are of being "Black." This seems true for this young woman and her beta-male hanger on. As we see with Africans, real Blacks don't indentify, they simply belong...to this or that tribe. Identifying is a much more complex and self-aware process, and clearly includes an element of not belonging.

"Black Pride" is therefore a White-and-Jewish-invented-and-funded exploitation of racially mixed people's sense of not belonging. This young Black woman almost definitely has some White and possibly even Scottish blood if she's lucky. Malcolm X certainly did, as do most talented Black musicians. (Coincidence? I think not.) So, another option for her is to do a 23andMe and get in touch with her non-Black self and therefore the more laudable elements of her complex racial identity. As a template, take me. I am an actual descendant of King John, and although the amount of Royal blood in my veins is infinitesimal after the intervening 30 or so generations, I still have an intense dislike of Robin Hood!

Malcolm X: a quarter haggis, a full kebab.
However, many people are "glass half empty" types who can never be consoled, even by brilliant suggestions like this. Knowing about her few percentage points of White blood might just make her feel bad about having so much Black DNA – a one-woman version of the White Man's Burden. In that case, her only option is to seek a collective identity that is not based on race. This usually involves some sort of religious group. My quarter-Scottish homeboy Malcolm X found Islam, after all...

But religion is not for everybody. So, what is the mainly Black, half-glass-empty, non-religious person in search of a collective identity to do?

You could do worse than support the old deracinated idea of American civic nationalism now being dusted off and trotted out by Donald J. Trump (50% Scottish), even though that form of retro-nationalism implies a dominant, 1950s-style White core somewhere in the background.

Or, perhaps, instead of seeking a Black identity predicated on past achievements that simply don't exist, how about seeking greatness in the future with an aspirational and futuristic Black identity?

Hillary's Choice?: What You Need to Know about Julian Castro

via American Renaissance

Hillary Clinton will almost certainly be the Democratic candidate in November. This means she may well be the next president of the United States. Don’t let the hopes many of us have pinned on Donald Trump blind you to electoral reality. For the last quarter century, the Democratic Party has won the popular vote in every national election except one, and every year, the demographic shifts favor the Democrats.

While Mrs. Clinton is revolting to most people on the Right, the company she keeps (and remember the old adage: “personnel is policy”) is worse. And this brings us to Julián Castro, former Mayor of San Antonio, and President Obama’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. It has been rumored for some time that he will be Mrs. Clinton’s choice for vice president. Even if he is not on the ticket, his prominence in the Democratic Party and his aggressive campaigning for Mrs. Clinton over the last few months guarantee that Secretary Castro would play a prominent role in a Clinton administration.

Julián Castro is a white advocate’s nightmare. Here is a brief biographical sketch.

Radical son

Mr. Castro’s parents never married, and he was raised mostly by his mother “Rosie” Castro, a radical chicana activist.

Rosie Castro
Rosie Castro

Miss Castro became politically active as a student at Our Lady of the Lake University in San Antonio. Initially she joined the local Young Democrats, but she quickly moved on to the newly formed Raza Unida Party (“United Race Party”). Not to be confused with the National Council of La Raza, RUP is a now defunct party that attracted chicanos and mestizos who were sick of a Democratic Party they felt did not meet their demands.


The party’s appeal was one of racial solidarity instead of ideology. This is clear not just from its Aztlan flag but from its website and Facebook page. Indeed, it is with this group that the notorious Professor José Ángel Gutiérrez, a cheerleader of falling white birth rates and national Balkanization, got his start. Mrs. Castro served as its Bexar County, Texas, party chair, and ran unsuccessfully for the San Antonio city council in 1971 with the help of an offshoot group, the “Committee for Barrio Betterment.”

Mrs. Castro, third from the left, during her radical youth.
Mrs. Castro, second from the right, during her radical youth

Julían Castro has said this about his upbringing:
My mother is probably the biggest reason that my brother and I are in public service [Joaquín Castro is a Democratic congressman from Texas]. Growing up, she would take us to a lot of rallies and organizational meetings and other things that are very boring for an 8-, 9-, 10-year-old. What I did get from my mother was a very strong sense that if you did public policy right, and you did well in public service, that it’s a positive influence on people’s lives.
Of his college experience he admits:
Joaquín and I got into Stanford because of affirmative action. I scored 1,210 on my SATs, which was lower than the median matriculating student. But I did fine in college and in law school. So did Joaquín. I’m a strong supporter of affirmative action because I’ve seen it work in my own life.

Rise to power

After college, Mr. Castro went back to his native San Antonio and became very active in local politics. In 2001 he became the youngest city councilman in the history of the city, and four years late ran for mayor, losing by just 4,000 votes. In 2009, he ran for mayor again, this time successfully.

In many ways, Mr. Castro is a Hispanic parallel to the current president. Both were raised by single mothers, both flirted with radicalism in their youth, both used affirmative action to get a top-tier education, and both had mixed successes as local politicians before being cast into the national spotlight. Much like Mr. Obama’s brief period in the senate, Mr. Castro’s five years as mayor were not eventful. In 2004, Mr. Obama was the first black to give the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. In 2012, Mr. Castro became the first Hispanic to do so. In his address, Mr. Castro made much of his multi-culti identity, just as Mr. Obama had. He shared many anecdotes about the tough lives his mother and grandmother led, saying of Mitt Romney, “He just has no idea how good he’s had it.”

Predictably, as with Mr. Obama, the leftist press calls Mr. Castro “post-racial.” The New York Times glowingly profiled him in 2010 in a piece entitled “The Post-Hispanic Hispanic President,” even making much of his limited grasp of Spanish. Mr. Castro can pivot between being a non-threatening, “off-white” Democrat and a Latino whom Hispanics can support.

What Sam Francis said of Mr. Obama’s blackness applies equally to Mr. Castro’s brownness:
His racial identity or supposed lack of it enables him to be both black and non-racial, white and multiracial, at the same time.
When he wants to be black, he can be and is. He calls himself black and the media routinely identify him as a “black” or “African-American.”
But he can also be white or not racial at all, which is useful when he’s presenting himself as “above” race and appealing to the white voters he’ll need if he’s going to be elected or when he’s denouncing his critics and opponents for playing race cards as he himself of course would never do.
Perhaps it was the similarities between the two men that led Mr. Obama to select Mr. Castro for a cabinet position, or perhaps it was just a sop to Hispanics. Either way, in 2014 Mr. Castro stepped down as mayor of San Antonio and became Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

The position of HUD Secretary was created by President Lyndon Johnson to manage his “Great Society” programs, and it has attracted many anti-white politicians, such as Jack Kemp and Andrew Cuomo. Mr. Castro is no exception. In his new role, he has made it a top priority to spread “diversity” across the land through new federal laws and regulations.


In the summer of 2015, Mr. Castro announced new rules better to enforce the 1968 Fair Housing Act, which made it illegal for landlords or property owners to discriminate against people based on their “protected class.” While shockingly underreported, the new “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule” does for housing what race preferences and quotas do for employment. Equal opportunity is no longer good enough; Mr. Castro wants equal outcomes.

The new rule is filled with dense legalese and is hundreds of pages long (find it here), but its goal is simple: eliminate all “whitopias.” Stanley Kurtz, one of the few vocal critics of the AFFHR summarized it this way:
AFFH obligates any local jurisdiction that receives HUD funding to conduct a detailed analysis of its housing occupancy by race, ethnicity, national origin, English proficiency, and class (among other categories). Grantees must identify factors (such as zoning laws, public-housing admissions criteria, and “lack of regional collaboration”) that account for any imbalance in living patterns. Localities must also list “community assets” (such as quality schools, transportation hubs, parks, and jobs) and explain any disparities in access to such assets by race, ethnicity, national origin, English proficiency, class, and more. Localities must then develop a plan to remedy these imbalances, subject to approval by HUD.
The recent Supreme Court decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project makes it likely that the federal government will be able to sue localities that do not work to “remedy these imbalances,” and, of course, it can also withhold funds. Mr. Kurtz notes the ways in which local governments will pay for this massive integration scheme:
1) Inhibit suburban growth, and when possible encourage suburban re-migration to cities. This can be achieved, for example, through regional growth boundaries (as in Portland), or by relative neglect of highway-building and repair in favor of public transportation. 2) Force the urban poor into the suburbs through the imposition of low-income housing quotas. 3) Institute “regional tax-base sharing,” where a state forces upper-middle-class suburbs to transfer tax revenue to nearby cities and less-well-off inner-ring suburbs (as in Minneapolis/St. Paul).
White suburbanites will thus be forced to pay for their own dispossession. Higher taxes will make their schools worse by importing non-white students. Higher taxes will also pay for non-white housing in once-safe neighborhoods.

The AFFH is a perfect example of the subtle, bureaucratized tyranny that is tightening the vice on whites. It isn’t something out of George Orwell’s 1984, but it will slowly destroy neighborhood after neighborhood in the name of diversity. Mr. Castro justifies dispossession with typically leftist arguments: “We know where you live matters. Children who live in good neighborhoods do much better than those who are stuck in poverty.”

He clearly believes that ZIP code matters more than genes:
As a former mayor, I know firsthand that strong communities are vital to the well-being and prosperity of families. Unfortunately, too many Americans find their dreams limited by where they come from, and a ZIP code should never determine a child’s future. This important step will give local leaders the tools they need to provide all Americans with access to safe, affordable housing in communities that are rich with opportunity.
It’s not certain how closely Julián Castro was involved in drafting the new rule, but he is happy to be the face of it. More important, he is determined to enforce it, and clearly prefers reengineering white America to being just another Texas mayor. In a way, he is the opposite of Ronald Reagan’s HUD Secretary, Sam Pierce, who, though a black man who had defended Martin Luther King Jr. in the Supreme Court, dutifully cut billions of dollars from Section 8 housing.

Whatever role Mr. Castro plays in a Clinton administration will serve as a springboard for his own presidential run in 2024. If you are one of those who do not vote, or who refuse to vote for the “lesser of two evils,” keep Mr. Castro in mind this November, no matter who wins the Republican nomination.