Apr 14, 2016

Why Isn’t Anyone in the Establishment Talking about Jewish and Asian Privilege?

via Return of Kings

When people of African descent speak to me about white privilege, it’s one thing, however much I find the concept deeply flawed, but when Jews and Asians, two groups which earn more than whites, talk about it, it truly enters the realm of the absurd. These people are so institutionally oppressed that, on average, they earn more than the people whom society supposedly elevates to the most special of categories.

In recent times, 44% of Jewish households earned over $100,000 annually, two and a half times the national average and still significantly more than gentile whites. The “masters” of American political and social life, white mainline Protestants (pejoratively called WASPs), were only half as likely to be in this category of household wealth.

Similar privilege can be found amongst Asians in the United States. Asian-American men earn one-fifth more than white American men and Asian-American women are effectively at parity with white American men. In a recent article for Forbes, by no means a friend of ROK because of its biased coverage about our Star Wars: The Force Awakens coverage, Tim Worstall points out statistics showing that white men earn just 83 cents for every dollar earned by Asian men in America. Worstall drew his figures from Mark J. Perry, Professor of Economics and Finance at the University of Michigan.

If structural racism against non-Gentile whites in the United States does not amount to anything but a thimble’s worth, how can two groups like Jews and Asians earn so much more than whites?

What happened to context and reporting figures properly?

Nope, I don’t. And neither do you.

Let’s be clear here: there are millions of non-privileged Jews and Asians in the United States and other Western nations. Poor Jews and Asians share the same miseries as poor whites, Latinos and blacks. Yet this is precisely the sort of context those who claim white privilege exists refuse to admit or insert into their arguments. The white garbage collector from Staten Island somehow benefits from the same invisible force as trust fund baby Mitt Romney.

I do not dispute that Jews and Asians receive better test scores, grades and other indications of academic achievement. But why? Well, to start off with, their parents are unsurprisingly much more likely to not only have a good education but also a good job. The privilege this creates is no different from a WASP family who passes on their wealth and non-genetic family traits to their children. In addition, because of years of pseudo-moral arguments about “white racism,” it is presumed that at least 25% of the rationale behind a white getting his job is based on his race, not his qualifications, experience, or other attributes.

Despite no evidence that Jews faced markedly greater social and economic barriers in the first half of the 1900s than Irish or Italians in America, who were the subject of repeated immigration control attempts by American authorities, they have been elevated to a superior level of victimhood. Similarly, the internment of Japanese families during the Second World War was used a pretext for arguing that America was irrefutably racist, even during the 1990s, 2000s and now 2010s. This ignores the fact that internment was a fate faced by a number of German and Italian immigrants, or their first and second generation descendants.

Gerrymandering white privilege arguments

White male privilege in action.

There are a number of devices those believing in white privilege use to make their position seem more realistic. One of the most potent, as Seth Rogen illustrated last year, Jews, whose phenotypes are usually white, are counted as Caucasian:
The benefits of this approach are obvious. If Jews are counted as whites, and no similar, thorny questions about the representation of Jews in higher education, including the Ivy League, can be averted. Harvard had a student body that was 25% Jewish according to 2013 figures. Yet Jews are only about 2.5% of the population and Harvard draws from across America, and even the world (the world being much less Jewish than even the United States). The numbers for Yale and Columbia were 27% and 30% respectively.

Leaving Jews to the side for a moment, Asians are around 4-5% of the US population and accounted for over 20% of Harvard College admissions for the class of 2019. People have alleged that Harvard and other Ivy League schools discriminate against Asians, requiring them to have much higher SAT scores and other measures than non-Asians. But if your race is roughly four times more represented at a place like Harvard, it is difficult to argue that racism is rife in the United States.

A sad state of affairs

Again, in trying to refute the idea that white privilege is a myth, critics will no doubt raise certain aspects of US history, however far back into the past they need to sift. They will raise Franklin Roosevelt’s wartime internment of Japanese-Americans (once is not enough, clearly), Sinophobia during the Californian Gold Rush, or the hostile reception meted out to Jewish immigrants to America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, even though they had just escaped the pogroms of the old Russian Empire. And all this does not even broach the topic of slavery. Regrettable things have happened in America over hundreds of years, but the notion that white privilege is pervasive is no less a fairytale than the story of Pinocchio.

These critics could also point to individual instances in a country comprising 300 million people that ludicrously suggest some kind of entrenched racism, whether through a swastika hoax in a university dorm or a random white man beating up an Asian kid (and probably for his money or iPod, not his race. Whatever the case, it is all drivel.

White privilege is nearly as outdated and false as the claim that the sun revolves around the world. It is nothing but a lie liberals tell their children and, worse still, yours, whenever they get their hands on them through popular culture or the education system.

If You Don’t Like Us, Let Us Leave

via TradYouth

The recent article on myself and the Traditionalist Worker Party was a typical story to come out of the Jewish controlled media. I wasn’t particularly surprised or blown away by anything, other than that I feel like I should send the ADL and SPLC a fruit basket for all the nice things they say about me. I don’t think even my own mother has called me intelligent and charismatic as many times as various Leftist organizations have in recent memory. All jokes aside, if you want to get into the minds of the public, go to the comments section of any article dealing with the subject of race in America.

Comment sections are tricky things. They’re a platform for anonymously voicing their honest opinions about the subject material. It is no surprise with the rise of nationalism that many far-left and cuckservative publications and websites have shut down their comment sections or put in place heavy moderation to suppress public opinion.

While the general narrative by the Left is that Whites aren’t hated or discriminated against, within just a few minutes of the article going live, the anti-White hate started pouring in. The irony of Bernie Sanders supporters talking about the working class then turning around and calling low-income Whites “rednecks” and “White trash” seems to be lost on them.

The Leftist agitators aren’t interested in the working class activists of previous generations. They’re just interested in attacking White people. When poor Blacks or Hispanics say they have concerns over economic and social issues, the Left applauds. When White working class people express their concerns over millions of lost jobs, decreasing wages, lower life expectancy and demographic replacement, we are instantly told to sit down, shut up, and accept our replacement.

Here is just a small selection of the comments found on the Washington Post article, that all seem to have a common thread.

own country


Leftists cheering our demographic displacement
Anti-Whites cheering our demographic displacement

Many of the commentators on the article are proposing an interesting idea that I wholeheartedly agree with, letting us form our own nation. In the view of liberal America, the idea that White people want to opt out of the failed multicultural experiment is considered the ultimate sin. White people are supposed to accept rape, job loss, murder, and endless assaults as part of our noble and quiet fall into non-existence. This mindset is pathological in the psyche of the radical Left, nearly a religious devotion to their supposed cause.

As an example of how far this goes one only needs to look at the story of Karsten Nordal Hauken, a leftist politician from Norway. Mr. Hauken was brutally sodomized at knife point by a Somali “refugee” and after the criminal was arrested and served his jail sentence, the “refugee” was deported back to Somalia. Mr. Hauken told reporters that this violent rapist wasa product of an unjust world. A product of an upbringing marked by war and deprivation” and that he felt “guilt and responsibility” for the guilty rapist being deported.

In what sane world is a man who broke into someone’s home, held him at knife point and then forcibly sodomized him not spending the rest of his life in prison, …let alone being held a pity party by one of his victims?

Contrary to the Leftist mindset, I don't think these guys are going to support homosexuality and liberalism
Contrary to the Leftist mindset, I don’t think Anjem Choudary is going to support homosexuality and liberalism

The Left claims to fight “Homophobia”, “Rape Culture,” and “Capitalist Interests” but they actively support importing and facilitating terrorism, mass sexual assaults and economic war against the working class through their immigration and multicultural policies.

In an amazing case of Orwellian doublethink, the useful idiots of the organized Left promote policies to increase rape, increase capitalist exploitation of the working class, and to institute demographic and religious changes that could lead to the implementation of Wahhabi Sharia law in the West which would be the end of both feminism and the homosexual movement that the Left fights so hard to promote.
At the behest of the organized Jewish community, White Leftists are dedicated to their own demographic and cultural extinction and will do anything to bring this future to pass. The Left however has been able to come up with a proper answer on how to deal with those who refuse to go quietly into the night and accept their genocidal plot.

Some Leftists say they want to kill us, others say they want to brainwash us but an increasing amount say they just want us to go away. While divorce is a terrible thing, sometimes it is necessary and likewise, sometimes political divorce is necessary. This is the one circumstance where the degenerates are opposed to a clean and easy no-fault divorce.

If the Left wants to have their endless immigration and rising tide of extremism, abortion, attacks on the family, and radical feminism, let them have it. The best solution politically for people who have irrecoverable differences is to let them go their own way, to chart their own course. That’s the beauty of sovereignty. No matter how much I object to what’s going on over the wall, it’s not my business.

In a way where both sides win, if Leftists and nationalists were able to peacefully separate into our own nations, we would no longer have to worry about Red States vs Blue States, Flyover County vs the Coasts, Multiculturalism vs Local Communities; we could live according to our guiding principles without stepping on one another. If California or New York wants to have gay marriage, let them have it. If Mississippi and the rest of the Bible Belt wants to have only Traditional Marriage, let them have it.

There is no longer a consensus on what an “American” even is or what American “values” supposedly are. The differences in religion, culture, ethnicity and customs divide the American Empire in ways that these various forces cannot coexist. One will always dominate the other and lead to further strife. In order to avoid ethnic, religious, and cultural strife and to give both the Left and Right what they want, the only solution is to peacefully separate from one another and then govern our own nations based on the will of the people who live there.

Regions that don’t want mass immigration should be allowed to have restrictive policies for immigrants. Those that support multiculturalism should be allowed to have it. If people want to have the Bible as the guiding text of their region, let them have it; if people want to have the writings of Marx and the Enlightenment to guide them, let them. I do not want to rule over people who do not share our values and worldview, I simply want to be left alone and not have bureaucrats and people with diametrically opposed values hundreds of miles away governing how my family and my community run our affairs.

America serves no one but globalism, we must allow each ethnic community to determine their own future and pave the way to self determination for all

America serves no one but globalism, we must allow each ethnic community to determine their own future and pave the way to self determination for all

If the Left is tired of “racism” and “White supremacy” and every other buzz word they like to spout, then give us our own sovereign and independent Homeland to live in. If White people are the problem, solve the problem by giving us our own “Safe Space” somewhere on the North American continent to where we won’t interfere with multiculturalism and diversity. This plan would empower ethnic communities, not just Whites, to take charge in regions where they are dominant and allow them to celebrate their culture, history and to make decisions for the best interests of their people.

Black communities should be allowed to hire Black police officers to patrol their streets. Hispanic areas should be allowed to have Spanish as the tongue used in schools and in local governments, Muslim communities should be allowed to implement Islamic laws according to their Faith, White communities should be allowed to maintain the homogeneous nature of their towns and cities. Each people would be sovereign, independent and allowed to govern themselves according to their values in a way that stops the half measures we have today that makes no side happy and instead be allowed to embrace true nationalism for their Faith, Family and Folk. Those who ascribe to multiculturalism should be allowed to do so in their own territory.

For Leftists they must only look at the rise of nationalism in Europe to see that this current system is unsustainable. As Whites are demographically pushed to the brink, we will begin and already are pushing back. The way to solve this conflict of ideologies and worldviews is to peacefully sit down and break apart the already failed American Empire, just as the peoples of the USSR did in the late 1980’s. To remain shackled to one another will only lead to conflict, disunity and animosity. If Leftists truly think we are the problem standing in the way of their multicultural utopia, then let us go.

Only through peaceful separation can we hope to bring about a true solution to the current battle over Identity, religion and values that is plaguing America from Coast to Coast. So I ask this of you liberals, if you hate us so much; why won’t you just let us go?

In 83% Black Detroit, a City Dominated by Black Officials, Why Are Black Contractors Still Classified as "Minorities"

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

A once proud (and White) city,
now lies in ruins
The ultimate symbol of white power is the American flag (regardless of its condition) on the moon. 

The ultimate symbol of black dysfunction is the Joe Louis Statue in 83 percent black Detroit, a black power fist standing amidst the decaying reminders of the city white people long ago abandoned.

Now comes this reminder of the type of community individual black people collectively create.[Minority-owned contractors in Detroit wanted for blight removal: City to host first contractor fair on May 13, ClickOnDetroit.com, 4-12-16]:

Minority-owned and city-based contractors in Detroit are being sought for the city's blight removal program.
Mayor Mike Duggan, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and members of the city's faith-based community on Tuesday announced upcoming contractor opportunity fairs.

The first of the events is scheduled May 13 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. at the Northwest Activities Center, 18100 Meyers.
Duggan says the city is "about to ramp up the work that's already taking place" in Detroit neighborhoods.
The city's blight removal efforts include demolitions and home rehabilitation.
More than 8,000 vacant houses have been demolished over the past two years.
The city is to receive $42 million in federal blight removal funds which could allow for 5,000 demolitions this year and 6,000 in 2017.
Without a black population, would Detroit be in need of federal blight removal funds?

Do you get why white people long ago passed laws designed to protect their civilization?

Unintended Consequences

via Radix

Alymer Fisher's The Pro-Life Temptation has caused a stir in the Alt Right. Hunter Wallace wrote two pieces criticizing Fisher at his Occidental Dissent blog, while Greg Johnson has put in his own two cents at Counter Currents

Abortion is a hot topic right now because of Donald Trump. Trump was strongly pro-choice in the past, and few of his supporters or detractors think he has gone through a serious conversion. His recent controversy resulted from his botching of pro-life talking points while trying to pander to pro-lifers. Nevertheless, he has focused renewed attention on abortion within the Alt Right.

Before addressing Hunter Wallace’s arguments, I’d like to make a couple of disclaimers and an attempt to find some common ground.

First, while I disagree with Hunter Wallace, I greatly value the work he has done for the movement, and I hope he sees this article as part of a healthy debate.

Unlike foreign affairs, immigration, or multiculturalism, abortion is not an issue that really defines the Alt Right or separates it from mainstream conservatism. In other words, no one comes to the Alt Right because they are attracted to our positions on abortion, nor does the media attention we have received of late have anything to do with this issue. Thus, it’s unnecessarily divisive to try to create some sort of “party line.”

However, there are a few issues that most on the Alt-Right agree on.
  • We are not “pro-choice” in the sense that we do not believe women have an absolute right to “control their bodies” and that either sex should be free of the consequences of their sexual choices.
  • We reject the bromides of the pro-life movement about “black genocide,” Margaret Sanger’s fascist villainy, or how women are the “second victims” of abortion.
With that said, while abortion may be a side issue, it is not inconsequential. It reflects how we view rights, life, and demographics.

In this respect, I think Wallace deeply errs.

1. Abortion Rates, Not Absolute Numbers, Matter.

Wallace writes:
According to the Guttmacher Institute, the abortion breakdown by race in 2008 was as follows: 36.1 percent Non-Hispanic White, 29.6 percent Black, 9.4 percent Other, and 24.9 percent Hispanic. In other words, more White women than Black women are getting abortions.”
Hunter ignores that Whites still are approximately 70 percent of the population. Stating that abortion affects Whites more than Blacks because a greater absolute number of Whites have an abortion is no different than those who will point to higher absolute levels of White crime to suggest that Whites are more violent than Blacks.

In the comment section of the Pro-Life Temptation, many Radix readers did not seem to understand this, so I will explain via a simple hypothetical. Imagine you have a society that has 1,000 pregnancies a year, none of which are aborted: 800 births are to Whites and 200 to blacks; thus 80 percent of all births are to Whites. The next year, abortion is legalized. Whites have an abortion rate of 10 percent, and Blacks have a an abortion rate of 30 percent: 80 white pregnancies are aborted, and 60 black pregnancies are aborted. The next year, there would be 720 White pregnancies and 140 Black pregnancies, with Whites now making up 84 percent of all births. Even though there is a higher absolute number of White abortions, the society becomes Whiter.

2. Abortion Didn’t Cause the White Demographic Decline

Mid-way through his critique, Wallace gives a long list of state-by-state demographics as of 1970.
Alabama – 74 percent White
Georgia – 74 percent White
South Carolina – 69 percent White
Mississippi – 63 percent White
Florida – 77 percent White
Louisiana – 66 percent White
Texas – 66 percent White

Wallace concludes,
This is what America looked like in 1970 on the cusp of Roe v. Wade when abortion on demand was illegal in all but a handful of states. . . . America has never in its entire history been whiter before or since.
It might seem autistic to accuse someone of a logical fallacy in an online debate . . . but this is a textbook case of post hoc ergo procter hoc. There is an obvious alternative cause to White’s demographic displacement—immigration policy. Wallace attempts to tie abortion to immigration, noting,
As it happens, the 45 million immigrants who have arrived since 1965 have replaced the 45 million Whites and blacks we have aborted since Roe v. Wade.
Yet this ignores that the 1965 Immigration Act, which fueled mass immigration, predated Roe by many years.

Given that Blacks and Hispanics are both much more likely to have abortions than Whites, Whites would be an even smaller share of the population if abortion had not been legalized.

3. Birth Control, Not Abortion, Causes Falling White Birth Rates.

According to Wallace:
Colorado has been singled out and cited as an abortion success story. Just so you know, the latest abortion numbers from Colorado in 2012 paint a very different story: Non-Hispanic White women are getting 60.8% of abortions in Colorado, Black women are getting 7.2%, Other accounts for 9% and Hispanic for 23%. The birthrate of low-income women that is plummeting in Colorado is likely that of White women.
First, as Colorado is 70 percent non-Hispanic White, abortion still has an overall eugenic benefit in Colorado. More importantly, he misread Fisher’s argument. Fisher was praising Colorado’s plan to provide free long-term contraceptives to the poor—not abortion. As Fisher wrote,
[T]he state provided intrauterine devices and implants that, unlike condoms or the pill, did not require that the user be responsible enough to plan ahead. Within a few years, the birth rate of low-income women plummeted.”
Pro-life conservatives, predictably, compared this policy to Nazi eugenics. Because this was the only way to get non-Whites to use birth control, one would expect there to be a lower gap between White and non-White abortion rates in Colorado because of the contraceptives.

This segues into a larger point. While birth control may be selfish, it requires some forward planning and discipline. You spend money on “the pill” and take it every day to avoid the mere possibility of a pregnancy in the future. Thus, while Blacks are more likely to have abortion, Whites are more likely to use birth control.
Birth control, not abortion, is what causes lower White birth rates. Few on the Alt Right have argued for banning birth control, and it would be an incredibly unpopular position to take. I’m sure most everyone reading this has used some form of contraception at some time, as have 98 percent of women who have been sexually active.

While I think the pill has been a major net negative on civilization, the genie is out of the lamp, and we need to deal with society as it is.

4. Eugenics or Eugenic Effects

Wallace responds to the arguments about whether we should waste our political capital on fighting birth control or abortion by noting the irony of “the same people who say we can’t outlaw or restrict abortion are strongly in favor of even more implausible government mandated eugenics schemes.”
But by supporting legalized abortion (or at least not bothering to fight it), we are not making the larger case of eugenics; we are rather accepting a policy with eugenic effects that is already in place. While I support eugenics (more on this below), leaving abortion laws as is, is not viewed by society as “eugenics.”

There are many public policies that have strong eugenic and dysgenic effects without coming under the rubric of “eugenics.” The crushing burden of student-loan debt, for example, prevents many young college-educated (high IQ) White couples from having children at a young age. In contrast, welfare subsidies for children encourage the poor and uneducated to reproduce.

We could support ending welfare for young mothers and ending the education-financial complex—both of which are popular positions among certain segments of the Left and Right—because they would have eugenic effects for our people.
(Yes, I am acknowledging my eugenic motives, but as I said, we don’t have much of an effect on these policy debates one way or the other. The question is simply what we decide to spend our limited resources and political capital on.)

5. The Ubermensch, the Untermensch, and the Embryo

Wallace reacted in horror to a quote from Greg Johnson’s essay on abortion:
for eugenic purposes, it might be very useful to fertilize a dozen eggs, sequence their genomes, choose only to implant the best, and wash the rest down the drain.
He fails to note that Johnson followed that sentence with “but no decent society can countenance such casual killing of healthy human beings.” Wallace goes on to discuss whether we support “White Identity” or some Nietzschean concept of a “superman.”

I’ll be happy to argue for Wallace’s straw man. I don’t really consider myself a Nietzschean. However, all things being equal, I would prefer a society populated by attractive, healthy, and intelligent people—rather than the ugly, sick, and stupid. Like all ends, there are some means that I find objectionable. I think most of us would agree that it’s wrong to indiscriminately murder everyone below an IQ 100; but few of us would be horrified by the idea of using IQ as a factor in immigration admissions.

Eugenics helps achieve that goal, and it can be done through various means—some more coercive than others. There have historically been two types of eugenics, positive eugenics (which encourages the desirable to breed) and negative eugenics (which discouraging the undesirable). Scientific advances creates a third option, sometimes called liberal eugenics, which involves genetic engineering or couples using either positive or negative eugenics to choose their best offspring.

Within each type of eugenics, there are still various levels of coercion that can be used. We could, for example, pay people to get sterilized voluntarily (as William Shockley famously suggested), or we could force them to do so. We could subsidize the desirable to reproduce or we could even bar them from using birth control.
While Wallace claims eugenics is completely unpalatable, the fact is, our society accepts certain forms of it. For example, while it receives some criticism, Project Prevention, which pays drug addicts to take long term birth control, still operates with relatively positive press.

Although the technology is not quite available, the idea of embryo screening would likely also be acceptable to most. It involves couples creating many dozens of embryos and selecting the best. This is a form of liberal eugenics, but it does not require genetic manipulation—which makes it more technologically feasible and removes the problem of a couple’s children not sharing their DNA.

From a moral perspective, there is no coercion, nor even any suggestion about who should or should not be reproducing. Thus, this could become one of the most feasible and morally acceptable form of eugenics, if one is willing to overlook the discarded embryos.

And our society already accepts this. In vitro fertilization (IVF) is widespread and requires discarding embryos even without the screening. In contrast to abortion, those who use IVF tend to be “Caucasian, married women with higher levels of education and income.”

Despite resulting in more babies and families, pro-lifers oppose helping rich, educated Whites have children through IVF because it “promotes the discarding of ‘extra’ human embryos.” As an alternative to having your own children, they suggest the “beautiful, loving and moral option of adoption.” In other words, pro-lifers promote cucking. Literally.

Personally, I do not see anything wrong with the IVF method. Remember that 60-80 percent of embryos fail to implant, and of those that do, 30 percent miscarry early in pregnancy—meaning that 72-86 percent of all embryos do not make it out of the womb. In almost all cases, the mother doesn’t know. However, if she did, no one would regard it as tragic as a third trimester miscarriage, much less the death of an infant.

This is just basic moral intuition. It’s the reason why Americans are generally opposed to late-term abortions but not first-trimester abortions. It may not be “logical” or “morally consistent” but the truth is that one needs a philosopher or a holy book to convince himself that a collection of cells has the same value as an infant.

While I can respect someone who has sincerely held religious view about abortion, from a strictly utilitarian view, abortion, as practiced, mitigates the negative dysgenic and demographic trends facing White Americans.

The Rise of the Jewish Policy Elite: Meritocracy, Myth, and Power

via Darkmoon


Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court marks a continuation and deepening of the lopsided ethno-religious representation in the US judicial system. If Garland is appointed, Jewish justices will comprise 45% of the Court, even though they represent less than 2% of the overall population.

Roman Catholics comprise the other 55% of the Court – even though they represent approximately 30% of the population. Protestants (historically the authors and signers of the country’s foundational documents, and the major confessional group) are totally absent from this august body of jurists.

Equally important the increasing power of Jewish justices on the Supreme Court is accelerating: Counting Garland, two of the last three appointments (67%) have been Jews.

In the first half of the 20th century in the US, progressive Jews and civil libertarians decried what they termed WASP (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant) exclusivity, privilege and discrimination, citing their domination of the Supreme Court and their ‘over-representation’ throughout the elite centers of power. Having totally displaced and replaced the dreaded WASPS, there is nary a word from the plethora of civil rights groups and Jewish organizations claiming to be concerned with issues of discrimination and exclusion. Perhaps the marginalized WASP population lacks any qualified jurists among their scores of millions, an ethno-cultural degeneration unique in US history or perhaps the last few WASPs appointed to the Supreme Court turned out to be among the most ardent and independent defenders of citizen rights, to the chagrin of numerous Administrations.

Nevertheless, if a rare individual should dare to raise the issue of nepotism and the exercise of narrow political considerations in the choice of Supreme Court nominees, the factious response is that ‘it’s all about merit’. Meaning, among the thousands of WASP graduates of the top law schools with academic awards and publications in prestigious journals, no qualified candidate can be found to address this lack of representation.

But scholarship and originality may not be of much merit: A brief perusal of the legal publications of Elena Kagan and Merrick Garland reveals meager, mediocre and pedestrian articles and monographs. In the case of Kagan, her rise to power was facilitated by her relationship with the former (and heartily voted out of office) Harvard President ‘Larry’ Summers, who appointed her Dean of the Law School despite her lack of quality publications. Summers, as Harvard President, led a raucous and bullying campaign against any academic critics Israeli policies during his abruptly abbreviated tenure in office.

Clearly the problem of ethno-religious nepotism is not confined to Jews, it was an abuse practiced by WASP elites and others before them. Nor does such nepotism benefit the average wage and salaried Jews, who have to struggle side-by-side with their Gentile compatriots to make a living and exercise their rights.

However, nepotism or ethno-religious favoritism has become an acute problem now when exclusive control of the Supreme Court compounds the growing problems of abuse in other spheres of the power structure – political, economic and mass communications. This imbalance has profound repercussions on everything from US overseas wars of aggression to the everyday struggle of Americans faced with deepening inequalities and the shredding of the social contract.

Historically, and particularly among progressive and leftist critics, what was referred to as the “Jewish Problem” was a multifaceted issue that revolved around the persecution of resident Jews by anti-Semitic regimes and within Christian majority cultures. Various solutions included the granting of citizenship rights following the French Revolution, socio-cultural assimilation, the development of socialism or separation and re-settlement in Palestine through the Zionist movement. Today the major issue has turned into an ‘American Problem’: how a powerful ethno-religious elite can use its multi-faceted power to secure (and create) strategic positions in the state while excluding contenders, repressing critics and actively promoting policies in the interest of a foreign state, Israel.

Not all Jewish appointees and elected officials explicitly follow the extremist position of the most aggressive Zionist organizations, especially the self-styled ‘Presidents of the Major American (sic) Jewish Organizations’ . . . but… nor do they openly object to Israeli-First activities or try to block them – for fear of ostracism and retribution – with the calumny of ’self-hating Jew’ unlikely to promote one’s career or social life.

Chosen People: The Myth of Meritocracy and the Practice of Mediocracy

To deal with the rise of Israel-First individuals to positions of power in the US, it is essential to analyze the all-pervasive claims of meritocracy, the argument that their influence is based on their ‘universally acclaimed’ achievements, intelligence and superiority far beyond their elite rivals. The argument of ‘unique merit’ blends smoothly with traditional Talmudic and contemporary Israeli-chauvinist belief that Jews are ‘the Chosen People of God’, destined to prevail over the inferior ‘others’.

The meritocratic argument is partly based on circular arguments contending that the disproportionate number of Jewish billionaires means they are more brilliant in business; that pro-Israel dominance within the US corporate mass media proves that Jewish media moguls are smarter and Israel is a righteous state . . . and the rise of Israel-Firsters in government, academia and finance reflects their higher intelligence, greater work ethic and accomplishments.

It is with the latter that we have to deal, because the significance of higher grades, diplomas from prestigious universities and piles of academic awards has to be proven on the ground. It is not simply the achievement of high individual positions and great wealth that matter, but how the policies formulated and practices pursued by these elite individual have affected the lives of 330 million Americans, the nation, its prestige, welfare and moral authority.

If we use these alternative ‘evidence-based’ criteria, we find a huge disparity between high levels of academic achievement and disastrous performance when in public office.

We can cite the Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan’s deregulatory policies, which led to the greatest financial crash since the Great Depression and his successor, Benjamin Bernanke, who presided over the trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street banks while millions of American’s lost their homes. Both attended elite institutions, both secured numerous prestigious awards . . . and both imposed disastrous policies on the American nation and people – with complete impunity for their monumental mistakes, while American workers continue to suffer.

Treasury Department

Stuart Levey was the first Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence within the US Treasury Department (a position created by AIPAC and tailored specifically for Levey). He graduated from Harvard College summa cum laude and magna cum laude. While Stu Levey was racing around the US and the rest of the world enforcing the economic sanctions against Iran (which he authored in line with Israeli directives), narco-terrorists from Mexico, Central America, Colombia and Peru were freely washing hundreds of billions of dollars a year in US banks. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabian officials who funded jihadi terrorists were never prosecuted or sanctioned – even after attacks within the US.

Levey’s successor, David Cohen (who else!) followed the same policy. Multi-national banks and corporations, which had corrupted officials, swindled investors, evaded taxes and laundered illicit funds were never investigated, let alone charged. Cohen devoted his time and effort, at Israel’s behest, enforcing sanctions against Iran and endeavoring to sabotage any US-Iran nuclear negotiations.

Foreign Policy

From the Clinton era through the George W. Bush and Obama regimes, the US engaged in a series of wars against predominantly secular governments in Muslim countries, which had been opposed to Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine.

Key policymakers in the design and execution of US war policy were prominent Jews bristling with diplomas from the most prestigious universities.

These ’scholars’, the ‘cream’ of US academe, blatantly falsified the pretexts for the US’ disastrous thirteen-year war (and counting) in Iraq, the lost (15-plus year) war in Afghanistan, the invasion and destruction of Libya and Syria. Their brilliant plans have led directly to the rise of ISIS throughout the region and the displacement of tens of millions of civilians in the Middle East, West Asia and North Africa.

Due credit must be given to the midwives of the 21st Century wars of foreign conquest and domestic decay: Standing out among the principle architects of these foreign policy disasters is Elliott Abrams, BA and Doctor of Jurisprudence, Harvard University. Abrams had been officially censored for lying directly to the US Congress about his role in the Iran-Contra scandal under President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. During that administration, Elliot directed US official support for the dictatorial regimes in Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras where over 250,000 Central American civilians were massacred. The new millennium wiped clean his tawdry slate of crimes against humanity and he was appointed a leading National Security Advisor under President George W. Bush 2002-2009. In this role, he fabricated ‘evidence’ linking the secular government of Iraq to the fundamentalist Al Qaeda and he served as a transmission belt channeling false Israeli ‘intelligence’ that Iraq possessed banned weapons of mass destruction. No weapons were ever found – a ‘mere detail of history’, according to his partner, Paul Wolfowitz. These blatant lies pushed to Bush Administration to invade and destroy Iraq.

While Elliot Abrams was strategically placed in the Bush/Cheney White House, his partners in deception, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith controlled Middle East policy at the Pentagon. This dream team of Abrams, Wolfowitz and Feith formed the powerful Israel-First Troika responsible for the military policies which systematically destroyed Iraq’s state apparatus, decimating its civil society, fragmenting the country and precipitating gruesome ethno-religious wars and the rise of ISIS. This ‘Troika’ has never been held responsible for the deaths of over one million Iraqis – but credit should be given to the ‘meritorious’.

Dr. Paul Wolfowitz received his BA from Cornell and PhD from the University of Chicago. In the 1980’s, early in his government career he temporarily lost security clearance for having passed confidential documents to Israeli agents. Despite this ‘youthful indiscretion’ (or act of treason), Wolfowitz became Deputy Defense Secretary under President George W. Bush (2001-2005). In this position, he was one of the earliest and most forceful advocates for military interventions against Iraq, Syria, Iran, Lebanon and Libya. He persuaded the American Congress and the Bush Administration that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq would be short and self-financing. He glowingly predicted that the wars would ‘pay for themselves’ in terms of looted natural resources and ‘re-construction’ contracts. In fact, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost tens of thousands of US military casualties, over a trillion dollars in military expenditures and they continue over 13 years (Iraq), and 15 years (Afghanistan) with no end in sight but completely devastated societies spewing millions of refugees and thousands of terrorists.

Equally luminous in academic credentials, the third of the ‘Israel-First Troika’, Douglas Feith received his BA from Harvard (magna cum laude), and JD (magna cum laude). He worked closely with Israeli intelligence officials fabricating out of whole cloth the myth of Saddam’s quest for ‘yellow cake’ uranium to construct Iraqi nuclear weapons of mass destruction pushing the US into war against Iraq.

Feith set up a cozy nest at the Pentagon, the ‘Office of Special Plans’ (OSP), which served as a base of operations for Israeli operatives. One thoroughly disgusted former Pentagon official described the flow of Israeli officials in and out of OSP as resembling ‘a brothel on Saturday night’.

One of Feith’s crowning achievements was the destruction of the Iraqi Baath Party and administrative apparatus, which included the entire police force, the army and public administration, education, and even the huge public health system. Virtually all qualified Iraqi officials were either fired or ‘disappeared’. The result was the total breakdown of essential services, the pillage of the national and historic patrimony and decimation of civil and secular Iraqi society. Even the most fabulous archeological treasures of Mesopotamia were destroyed or looted for American and European collectors. Feith’s level of meddling and disastrous policies led the colorful US General Tommy Franks to describe the Harvard ‘JD’ as “the dumbest fucking guy on the planet”.

Hovering on the periphery of the ‘Troika’ was the ‘mysterious’, veteran manipulator, Richard Perle. With his BA from the University of Southern California and MA from Princeton (and no military experience), Perle was qualified to push for serial US wars on Israel’s behalf, starting with Iraq and moving on to all other countries which had traditionally supported the rights of the Palestinian people. He was a key member of the US Defense Policy Board under the Bush Administration and the front ideologue for invading Iraq. His second ‘job’ was strategic adviser to Israeli Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Benyamin Netanyahu. Perle pushed for US military intervention to effect ‘regime change’ in Syria and Iran as well as Libya.

Beyond the warrior ‘troika’ and shadowy Mr. Perle, there is Dr. Dennis Ross who received his BA and PhD from UCLA and taught at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Ross and fellow uber-Zionist, Martin Indyk, founded the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) the most influential lobby on Middle East policy and a virtual ‘king-maker’ in Washington. He was President Bill Clinton’s ‘Middle East Coordinator’, ensuring that Israel’s land grabs in the occupied territories were unimpeded, and indeed justified and funded by the US taxpayer. His notoriety in promoting the brutal and illegal confiscation of Palestinian property earned him the title as ‘Israel’s lawyer’ even among his most pro-Israel colleagues.

Ross made sure that Israel would not be bound to the Camp David agreements even as President Clinton claimed the negotiations as his landmark achievement in diplomacy. AIPAC, under Ross and Indyk, lobbied long and hard for the US invasion of Iraq; it backed Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and justified the expansion of apartheid style ‘Jews only’ colonial settlements in the occupied Palestinian West Bank.

During the Obama Presidency, Ross served as Special Adviser for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. In this capacity, he actively opposed diplomatic negotiations with the government of Iran or the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Ross’ partner, Martin Indyk received his PhD from the Australian National University and served as Deputy Research Director and co-founder of AIPAC (1982-85). This, the most powerful lobby in Washington, serves exclusively as a political fifth column for the Israeli Foreign Office. Indyk was founding Director of the Washington Institute of Near East Policy (WINEP), a barnyard of ideological propagandists for Israel. When President Clinton appointed (the Australian, Israeli, US citizen) ‘Marty’ Indyk as US Ambassador to Israel, serious questions came up about his transfers of confidential documents to Israel. He thus became the first Ambassador stripped of security clearance. Israel Lobby pressures led to reinstated security clearance for Indyk who was subsequently named Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. As a mouthpiece for Israel’s interests, Indyk has pushed to ‘contain’ Iraq (through bombing) and Iran (through economic sanctions).

Throughout his career, Indyk sabotaged peace negotiation between Israel and Palestine and he undermined any early diplomatic resolution of the Iraq-US conflict, which might have prevented the disastrous war. His meddling on Israel’s behalf has cost the US treasury hundreds of billions of dollars in lost trade with Iran. Despite his clear record of ’service to Israel’ and ‘disservice to the US’, President Obama appointed Indyk as US (sic) Special Envoy for Israel-Palestine Negotiations (2013-2014). In this supposedly ‘diplomatic’ role he failed to protect even one acre of Palestinian farmland among the hundreds seized by Israel for the illegal establishment of many ‘Jews Only’ enclaves the occupied West Bank.

Economic Policy – More Mediocrity, Less Meritocracy

Jack Lew, Secretary of the Treasury (2013-2016) heads an ethno-Chauvinist quintet dictating US foreign and domestic economic policy (with Michael Froman, Chief Trade Negotiator; ‘Penny’ Pritzer, Secretary of Commerce; Lawrence Summers, Director of National Economic Council and Janet Yellen, head of the Federal Reserve Bank). Lew pushed policies favoring the wealthiest 1% along with his co-religionist Michael Froman, while millions of Americans were plunged into poverty and stagnation. Their policies include Free Trade Agreements in Europe, Asia and Latin America which have led to the relocation of US MNC overseas, massive job losses at home, further deepening inequalities and degrading work conditions and wages. Recently, in his stellar public career, Jack Lew was investigated for lying to the US Congress about the national debt, the size and growth of which he deliberately understated. Thanks to his ‘backers’, he was never charged . . . Of course, Lew has his BA from Harvard and JD from Georgetown, which accounts for his success on behalf of the leisure class.

Penny Pritzer, Obama’s Secretary of Commerce (2013-2016) received her BA from Harvard and JD and MBA from Stanford. She is a Chicago billionaire, who served as National Financial Chairperson of for Barack Obama’s 2008 Presidential campaign, and was National Chair of his 2012 campaign. Pritzer has been major player among prominent Chicago Jews ensuring that ‘their candidate’ Obama ‘got it right’ on US-Israel relations. Despite having been fined $460 million by the US Treasury Department for predatory banking (Pritzker’s, Superior Bank of Chicago had fleeced millions of poor and middle class household mortgage holders and investors of billions of dollars of their assets), a grateful Obama named Penny Pritzker as his Secretary of Commerce. She quickly teamed up with Froman and Lew in promoting the ‘free trade’ agreements that have thoroughly undermined US regulations protecting labor and the environment. Billionaire Pritzker and her partners have been fabulously successful in globalizing profits for the elite while ’socializing’ the cost of corporate flight abroad onto the backs of the US working and middle classes.

Dr. Michael Froman, Obama’s Chief Trade Negotiator, has a BA from Princeton, a JD from Harvard and PhD from Oxford. Prior to heading up Trade, Froman served under ‘Bill’ Clinton in Treasury and was a National Security adviser to President Obama. He actively pushed for the Obama’s program of expansive domestic police state surveillance. He is also the principal author and promoter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which includes eleven Pacific nations and is designed to marginalize and encircle China . . . This is a ‘trade’ partnership, which may jeopardize the profits of over 500 major US MNC with investments in China and the US multi-hundred-billion-dollar trade relation. Froman is one of the major architects of Obama’s ‘pivot to Asia’, which has heightened military tensions and threatens the entire West Coast economies heavily dependent on China trade.

Not to be outdone by other luminaries in the ‘economic quintet’, Lawrence Summers had been President at Harvard University until he was booted out by a resounding “no confidence vote” by the faculty – despite the efforts of Zionist academics and trustees who stuck by their ‘golden boy’. Summers, along with co-religionist Alan Greenspan (it has been so hard to find any competent Gentiles to steer the US economy), was one of the prime authors of the deregulatory financial policies leading to the 2008-09 financial-economic crash. This crushing success caused double-digit unemployment, three million household foreclosures and forced a trillion dollar bank bailout down the gagging throats of the US taxpayers.

Summers led the charge on the successful repeal of the New Deal, Glass-Steagall Act, a venerable depression era legislation designed to prevent banks from speculating with their depositors’ savings – which the banks promptly did after the repeal.

As Under-Secretary of Treasury in 1993, Deputy-Secretary in 1995 and Treasury Secretary in 1999, the Harvard and MIT-diploma-laden Summers advised the vodka-soaked ‘experts’ around Boris Yeltsin to ‘privatize the Russian economy’ – resulting in the pillage by gangster-oligarchs of over $500 billion dollars in public properties, banks and natural resources and providing significant profits for a score of Harvard-based ‘advisers’.

As President of Harvard, he attributed the absence of women scholars in science, mathematics and engineering to their lack of ‘high-end’ intellectual capacity (ignoring centuries of ingrained discrimination) and he trivialized the academic work of Afro-American scholar, Cornel West, causing him to leave and join Princeton. His denigration of a major African-American scholar was in line with his views on Africa while at the World Bank where he advocated shipping toxic waste because, ‘I’ve always thought that the under-populated countries in Africa were vastly under-polluted.”

After alienating women and African Americans, Summers spearheaded a vitriolic attack on any and all campus critics of the state of Israel. He targeted student leaders of the peaceful Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement as ‘anti-Semites’ or ’self-hating Jews’, using the University Presidential bully platform to silence opponents of his pro-Israel politics. Eventually, he was ousted from office by an overwhelming faculty vote ostensibly for his financial ‘conflict of interests’ related to his Yeltsin-era dealings with mega-swindler Andrei Shleifer whose shady deals in Russia’s privatization orgy made some Harvard officials very wealthy.

Self-promoted, academic spokesman for the American worker, Robert Reich received his JD at Yale Law School and taught at Harvard. He served as Labor Secretary under Clinton (1993-97). During Reich’s tenure, labor union membership steeply declined, laws prohibiting worker organizing were tightened and the minimum wage became a minimum survival wage. Reich hung on to his Cabinet position even after the North American Free Trade for the Americas (NAFTA} was approved destroying over two million once secure American manufacturing jobs. He hung on as President Clinton carpet bombed the renowned worker self-managed factories of Yugoslavia. He kept his luxurious office in Washington after Clinton bombed Sudan’s principle factory for the production of vaccines and antibiotics leaving million of children and adults without basic vaccines and medicines. Reich kept ‘mum’ even as Haiti was invaded and a harsh neo-liberal anti-worker agenda was imposed to permit the democratically elected President Aristide to return to office.

While domestic inequalities deepened and economic deregulation extended, Reich remained in office. Reich ignored Israeli violence against Palestinian labor unions and workers, backing Clinton’s “carnal relation” with Tel Aviv.

After years of devastation against workers at home and abroad, Reich left Washington for a cushy $243,000-a-year appointment at UC Berkeley where he ‘teaches’ two hours a week assigning his own op-ed columns in the mass media as ‘reading material’. When not engaged in such strenuous scholarship, Reich has managed to churn out books ‘critical of neo-liberalism, inequality and social justice’. ‘Crying all the way to the bank’, this intellectual for the oppressed worker has to manage the $40,000 he is paid for each 45 minute speech on the lecture circuit. On an hourly basis, Reich earns 6 times more than the average US corporate CEOs he denounces.


From our discussion it is clear that there is a profound disparity between the stellar academic achievements of Israel-First officials in the US government and the disastrous consequences of their public policies in office.

The ethno-chauvinist claim of unique ‘merit’ to explain the overwhelming success of American Jews in public office and in other influential spheres is based on a superficial reputational analysis, bolstered on degrees from prestigious universities. But this reliance on reputation has not held up in terms of performance – the successful resolution of concrete problems and issues. Failures and disasters are not just ‘overlooked’; they are rewarded.

After examining the performance of top officials in foreign policy, we find that their ‘assumptions’ (often blatant manipulations and misrepresentations) about Iraq were completely wrong; their pursuit of war was disastrous and criminal; their ‘occupation blueprint’ led to prolonged conflict and the rise of terrorism; their pretext for war was a fabrication derived from their close ties to Israeli intelligence in opposition to the findings US intelligence. Their sanctions policy toward Iran has cost the US economy many billions while their pro-Israel policy cost the US Treasury (and taxpayers) over $110 billion over the last 30 years. Their one-sided ‘Israel-First’ policy has sabotaged any a ‘two-state’ resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and has left millions of Palestinians in abject misery. Meanwhile, the disproportionate number of high officials who have been accused of giving secret US documents to Israel (Wolfowitz, Feith, Indyke and Polland etc.) exposes what really constitutes the badge of “merit” in this critical area of US security policy.

The gulf between academic credentials and actual performance extends to economic policy. Neo-liberal policies favoring Wall Street speculators were adopted by such strategic policymakers as Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and Lawrence Summers. Their ‘leadership’ rendered the country vulnerable to the biggest economic crash since the Great Depression with millions of Americans losing employment and homes. Despite their role in creating the conditions for the crisis, their ’solution’ compounded the disaster by transferring over a trillion dollars from the US Treasury to the investment banks, as a taxpayer-funded bailout of Wall Street. Under their economic leadership, class inequalities have deepened; the financial elite has grown many times richer. Meanwhile, wars in the Middle East have drained the US Treasury of funds, which should have been used to serve the social needs of Americans and finance an economic recovery program through massive domestic investments and repair of our collapsing infrastructure.

The trade policies under the leadership of this ‘meritocratic’ elite – formerly called the ‘Chosen People’ – have been an unmitigated disaster for the majority of industrial workers, resulting in huge trade deficits and the deskilling of low paid service employment – with profound implications for future generations of American workers. It is no longer a secret that an entire generation of working class Americans has descended into poverty with no prospects of escape – except through narcotics and other degradation. On the ‘flip side’ of the ‘winners and losers’, US finance capital has expanded overseas with acquisition and merger fees enriching the 0.1% and the meritocratic officials happily rotating from their Washington offices to Wall Street and back again.

If economic performance were to be measured in terms of the sustained growth, balanced budgets, reductions in inequalities and the creation of stable, well-paying jobs, the economic elite (despite their self-promoted merits) have been absolute failures.

However, if we adopt the alternative criteria for success, their performance looks pretty impressive: they bailed out their banking colleagues, implemented destructive ‘free’ trade agreements, and opened up overseas investments opportunities with higher rates of profits than might be made from investing in the domestic economy.

If we evaluate foreign policy ‘performance’ in terms of US political, economic and military interests, their policies have been costly in lives, financial losses and military defeats for the nation as a whole. They rate ’summa cum lousy’.

However if we consider their foreign policies in the alternative terms of Israel’s political, economic and military interests, they regain their ’summa cum laudes’! They have been well rewarded for their services: The war against Iraq destroyed an opponent of Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The systematic destruction of the Iraqi civil society and state has eliminated any possibility of Iraq recovering as a modern secular, multi-ethnic, multi-confessional state. Here, Israel made a major advance toward unopposed regional military dominance without losing a soldier or spending a shekel! The Iran sanctions authored and pushed by Levey and Cohen served to undermine another regional foe of Israeli land grabs in the West Bank even if it cost the US hundreds of billions in lost profits, markets and oil investments.

By re-setting the criteria for these officials, it is clear that their true academic ‘merit’ correlates with their success policies on behalf of the state Israel, regardless of how mediocre their performances have been for the United States as a state, nation and people. All this might raise questions about the nature of higher education and how performance is evaluated in terms of the larger spheres of the US economy, state and military.

What we suggest is that degrees from prestigious universities and the highest awards have prepared academic high achievers to serve the elites but not the workers; to empower the financiers but not the producers. These years of training and achievement have certainly not prevented destructive foreign loyalties from undermining the greater society, nor have they taught basic civic virtues and egalitarian values. Prestigious universities recruit and train graduates in the mold of the dominant elites and increasingly narrow ethno-classes. They purge, intimidate and marginalize effective critics of Wall Street and of the State of Israel – the two major success markers that derive from an increasingly insulated ethno-chauvinist power configuration. I would rather question if the disproportionate rise to the top of academia, government and finance hierarchies by pro-Israel Jews has less to do with their effective practical knowledge and democratic values and more to do with their affiliation with the political and economic power that revolves around ‘the1%’ and is played out, first in academia and then in the larger political and economic spheres to the detriment of the vast majority.

Whatever intrinsic intelligence may exist can be blinded and distorted by an irrational doctrine of racial-ethnic superiority: the results have been stupid and destructive policies imposed by self-congratulatory, self-contained collectivities – with absolutely no accountability for their failures.


The prestigious degrees and awards may account for the appointments – but they don’t explain the complete absence of any evaluations, or firings or even punishment for failed policies. There have been no consequences for the authors of broken economies, impoverished workers, prolonged losing wars, lies and fabrications of data leading to war and the passing of confidential state documents. Why have they continued to receive promotions in the face of policy failures? Why the revolving doors of appointments to the World Bank, positions in the ‘best’ universities (to the exclusion of real independent scholars) and the lucrative seats in investment banks after their policies have shredded the domestic economy?

Don’t the deaths and maiming of millions of Iraqis, Palestinians, Syrians and, Libyans and the tens of millions of desperate refugees, resulting from their foreign policies, warrant a pause in their continued hold on power and prestige, if not outright condemnation for crimes against humanity?

The Territorial Imperative: A Plan for Taking Back Our Homelands, Part 1 – Recognizing and Arresting the Causes of Decline

via National Action

‘The decisive battle, the last charge, was here. Here the fate of nations would be decided, what was at stake was the future of the world’ – Ernst Junger, Storm of Steel (1920).

We all know and feel it but few dare speak out. Instead we whisper through cigarette smoke in the back room of a quiet cafe. Or confess our dirty little secret to our closest friends over the rim of a half-empty glass. But never mind how we try to deal with it, by ignoring it or denying it, the truth is out there, in the streets where we walk, in the shadow of the monuments commemorating our gallant forebears, men and women who died needlessly in two European Civil Wars; in the districts where we live, where our children are trafficked, tortured and gang-raped by Muslim men; and in the places where we work, where along with affirmative action and diversity quotas, uttering a politically incorrect sentiment will get you fired faster than flashing a crucifix.

We are engaged in a war for survival. And we are losing.

It is imperative that we recognize what is happening and respond effectively, for the evidence is all around us, though the controlled media try to paper over the yawning cracks in our social fabric with addictive soap operas which promulgate their politically correct narrative. Or talent shows that distract us with dazzling lights and the opportunity to get rich quick.

Did Oceania declare war on Eurasia this month, or was it Eurasia attacking Oceania?

And despite what follows, we cannot exonerate ourselves from blame. For we, are to a greater or lesser extent the architects of our own destruction. It is us, not others, that have allowed the putrescent swamp we inhabit to fester. It is we who have failed to swat the mosquitos that snap and bite at a formerly vibrant and expansionist cultural entity, reducing it to juddering senility within a few brief generations. And it is only we who are infected with this universalist bacillus that is killing us. Other races seem immune and it is time to take a good hard look in the mirror and recognize the root cause of the symptoms we suffer, before dealing with those that seek to take advantage of our principles for their own nefarious purposes.

For of course, the liberal elite and their apparatchiks who take it in turns to rule over us in this Byzantine grinding machine called liberal democracy, would have you believe that we all live in John Lennon’s imaginary world where there are no countries, no reason to kill or die for, no religion too. Except that is, when we are surreptitiously protecting the interests of multinational corporations who happen to fund the political parties and politicians who supposedly represent us. Or, in order to covertly defend a small but highly influential and yet illegal state in the Middle-East. For as the former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once said: Governments do not govern, but merely control the machinery of government, being themselves controlled by the hidden hand’.

Can’t you just feel all that warmth being generated by the brotherhood of man?

And yes, John, to answer the question you pose in that crepuscular anthem ‘Imagine’, I do say you are a dreamer, and unfortunately, you are not the only one. Because the hocus-pocus you and your kind have peddled through your Yellow Submarine guitar picks and your All You need is love platitudes have lulled us, your working class European brethren into a false sense of security, and we, just like the women you eulogize in your songs, are soon going to wake up from your dream into a nightmare running with blood and excrement. . . . Read more

1488 is the Gateway Drug to the Alt-Right, not the Other Way Round?

via Counter-Currents

The Alt-Right is both a medium and a message. This is confusing for a lot of people. Don’t blame them. It’s tricky.

As a medium, the Alt-Right is an aspect of the internet and social media that makes use of a number of simple psychological tricks and which exploits a number of factors, including youth, anonymity, boredom, egoism, and shock value. This translates essentially into memes, trolling, shitposting, Tweeting, and various forms of LARPing and (usually anonymous) signalling. Its operatives are typically anonymous individuals, except in cases where they have been too stupid to ensure this.

The Alt-Right-as-Message, however, is a collection of ideas and moral positions that, like any ideology, has an inherent tonality and consistency (or not, in which case it needs to work harder at this). These ideas and insights involve anti-liberal, anti-globalist, and anti-egalitarian positions on things like gender, race, identity, materialism, and even economics.

Compared to the anonymity of the Alt-Right-as-Medium, the Alt-Right-as-Message has a pedigree and is associated with actual named persons – people like Dr. Kevin MacDonald, Jared Taylor, Stefan Molyneux, Dr. Greg Johnson, Richard Spencer, and many others.

The Alt-Right-as-Medium is basically stupid, visceral, edgy, and fun. The Alt Alt-Right-as-Message is intellectual, cerebral, balanced, and hard work (especially for those with lower IQs or for those with high IQs narrowly focused – i.e. the autistes in our movement).

Understanding these two aspects of the Alt-Right will save a lot of time and trouble in the future, as most of the controversies of the Alt-Right are generated by an inability to understand this distinction.

Understanding this distinction will also help the leaders of the Alt-Right behave more correctly, as sometimes the hard work done by the intellectual wing of the Alt-Right can be damaged by lapsing back into LARPier territory. Rather than give actual examples, of which I am aware of several, imagine if the greatly respected Dr. Kevin MacDonald, no longer satisfied with just being called a “Nazi” by groups like the SPLC, was caught on camera sieg heiling and shouting “Race war now! Gas the Kikes!”

That would be a riot, and of course some would praise it as a forceful “rejection of Leftist moral framing,” etc. But would it be effective? The obvious answer is no. Indeed, it would be highly destructive, as his lifetime’s work would be easier to dismiss as the work of a “Neo-Nazi nut job.” So, ponder this hypothetical example next time you are unclear about these two aspects of the Alt-Right and how they interrelate.

An interesting real-life case is that of Ramzpaul who seems to be frequently embroiled in Twitter spats with what are known as 1488ers. As a talented vlogger, active Twitterer, and uber-troll, who also seeks to hold an intellectually and morally consistent position that goes down well with young Eastern European women, Paul kind of straddles the divide between Alt-Right-as-Medium and Alt-Right-as-Message.

The problem however is not Ramzpaul, the problem is the anonymous 1488ers, most of whom are simplistic and anonymous. Paul is routinely lambasted for not being purist and hard-core enough. He also picks up flack for his “normie” tone and for being soft on the Jews, even though he has frequently criticized Zionism and Jewish double standards.

There seems to be a misperception among 1488ers that they represent the hard core of the Alt-Right and that those in the Alt-Right who don’t constantly signal a similar Vantard position haven’t been red-pilled enough. When they do defend Ramzpaul, as some of them do, they usually say things like, “He’s a good entry point into the Alt-Right for normies.” People like Stefan Molyneux are viewed in a similar way, allowing the young, anonymous, autistic 1488er to have a sense of intellectual superiority.

In short, the 1488ers believe that they represent the core and a higher level of the Alt-Right and that all other aspects of Alt-Rightism – Ancaps, the Manosphere, pagans, trad-Caths, etc. – are merely lower levels of red-pilling for the normie masses leading to them. Is this view valid in any way?

It is early days, as most 1488ers seem to have only been 1488ers for around six months or less. I suspect that a great many of them – especially the more intelligent and balanced individuals – will mellow out and seek a morally and intellectually valid position instead of something shockish and sockish.

But we can also answer this question by surveying the general characteristics of the two kinds of Alt-Righters.


The characteristics of the 1488ers’ modus operandi – simplicity, repetitiveness, purity spirals, puerility, anonymity (sock value), virality (shock value), etc. – place it squarely within the Alt-Right-as-medium part of our scheme, and suggest that it is strongly a lower and subservient form of Alt-Rightism.

The main characteristics of the non-1488er’s modus operandi – logic, evidence, insight, moral and intellectual consistency, the reliance on abstract thought, social outreach, a desire to exist beyond the basement, willingness to learn from successful political groups in Europe – suggest that it is the higher and more evolved form of the Alt-Right.

So, does this mean that the 1488, shitposty, memey side of the Alt-Right should just curl up and die? No, far from it!

Because of the way in which the mainstream media is skewed in favor of hegemonic Liberalism, we need to have skilled skrimishers and asymmetrical warriors, even if they are obsessive, unwashed autistes in basements, who spend more time online than is healthy for them. It might even help for them to think they are the cutting edge and center of our movement as they find new ways to trigger the normies and push them in our general direction – as long as those really at the center of our movement don’t get too carried away and make the same mistake.