Aug 4, 2014

'Anti-Racist' Terrorism Caught on Video

via American Renaissance

On May 19, 2012, 18 members of something called the Hoosier Anti-Racist Movement stormed the Ashford House Restaurant in Tinley Park, IL, armed with hammers and clubs. They attacked a small gathering of a group called the Illinois European Heritage Association.

The “anti-racist” political violence was caught on surveillance footage that was never made public–until now. There is also footage of the attackers at a nearby restaurant before the assault. The faces of many are clearly identifiable, but only six of the 18 attackers have been arrested. The video that follows is our report on the crime and its aftermath.

Jews and Gun Control: A Reprise

via The Occidental Observer

The thorny issue of Jewish support for gun control has reared its head once more, this time in Washington State. The Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle has called for the resignation of Brian Judy, a National Rifle Association lobbyist who reportedly linked gun control to that untouchable icon of Jewish victimhood, the Holocaust. At a news conference at the Federation’s Seattle headquarters, President Keith Dvorchik said Judy should resign for connecting an anti-gun ballot initiative to policies pursued by Nazi Germany. Dvorchik further demanded the national office of the NRA “make clear that it rejects his ignorant and unproductive dialogue.”

Judy’s remarks first surfaced on the liberal blog Horsesass.org. An audio clip plays over a still image of a gathering and features Judy talking about Jews who support gun control. The remarks were made at a gathering in Silverdale opposing I-594, a measure on the ballot this fall that would further expand background checks for gun purchases. In the recording, Judy references Nick Hanauer, a Seattle Jew who has contributed more than $300,000 to an independent-expenditure group supporting I-594, in addition to an earlier $1 million pledge. Other significant funds have come from Jewish billionaire and former Microsoft CEO, Steve Ballmer who, along with his wife Connie, is a major contributor to the Hanauer-founded organization, Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility. Hanauer wrote recently in Politico about how his family fled Nazi Germany. The speaker on the recording references Hanauer’s piece: “Now [Hanauer is] funding, he’s put half a million dollars, toward this policy, the same policy that led to his family getting run out of Germany by the Nazis. You know, it’s staggering to me, it’s just, you can’t make this stuff up. That these people, it’s like any Jewish people I meet who are anti-gun, I think, ‘Are you serious? Do you not remember what happened?’ And why did that happen? Because they registered guns and then they took them. Why did you have to flee to this country in the first place? Hello! Is anybody home here?”

Dvorchik, in calling for Judy’s resignation, failed to mention broader Jewish interests in achieving the disarming of the civilian populace (which I will discuss below), claiming instead that the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle has an interest in the issue because of a shooting that occurred eight years ago. Naveed Haq, an apparently deranged Muslim, forced his way into the federation’s offices with a handgun, killing one employee and wounding five others.

Dvorchik has demanded that the national office of the NRA disavow Judy’s remarks and the “idiotic, simplistic and simply wrong” idea that the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany has anything to do with a ballot measure that calls for background checks for gun purchases. He added that to question whether the Jews don’t “understand history is the most vile rhetorical question that has ever been asked.” Dvorchik has been joined by anti-gun Jewish state politicians Reuven Carlyle and David Frockt, who have said Judy’s statements “carry dark, ugly and subtle undertones of anti-Semitism.” Additionally, Hanauer’s Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility reports on its website that the following Jewish organizations now support I-594 as a matter of policy: The Anti-Defamation League, Bet Alef, Congregation Beth Shalom, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Jewish Family Service, Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, Kavana Cooperative, Kol HaNeshamah, National Council of Jewish Women, Stroum Jewish Community Center, Temple Beth Am, Temple Beth Hatfiloh, Temple Beth Or, Temple B’Nai Torah, Temple De Hirsch Sinai, Tikvah Chadashah, Herzl Ner Tamid, Temple Beth El and the Washington State Holocaust Education Resource Center.

High-profile Jews have a nasty habit of finding themselves at odds with the NRA. The Judy case is almost a carbon copy of 2013’s fiasco involving Jewish mayor of Jersey City, Steve Fulop. In November Fulop announced that he would he would use the buying power of his police force’s weapon purchases to essentially blackmail gun vendors into making it much more difficult for regular customers to purchase arms. Shortly after Fulop made his intentions public, Scott L. Bach, an NRA board member and executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, reportedly told an audience: “His (Fulop’s) grandparents were Holocaust survivors according to Wikipedia. So you’ve got to wonder why he is not getting it.” ADL Chief witch hunter Abe Foxman responded in turn, condemning Bach’s remarks not only for invoking of the Holocaust to score political points (presumably only Jews are afforded that privilege), but also adding that Bach’s summoning of Fulop’s family’s personal history “makes it all the more offensive.”

Scratch the surface even lightly in almost any state and you will find influential Jews leading the movement to restrict the right to bear arms. The strongest supporter of gun control measures in Connecticut is Jewish Senator Richard Blumenthal. The biggest gun control group in Pennsylvania is CeaseFirePA. The board of CeaseFirePA is dominated by Jews and includes such figures as Nancy Gordon, a member of the Jewish Social Policy Action Group, and Shira Goodman, Che Saitta-Zelterman and Fred Kaplan-Mayer. In New York Michael Bloomberg has formed and financed Everytown, a new gun control organization, and has already pledged $50 million to the cause of making it harder for citizens to purchase arms and ammunition. The Huffington Post reports that in California Dianne Feinstein has “long been one of the Senate’s strongest advocates for gun control.” In Michigan, Jewish Senator Carl Levin has been at the forefront of gun control efforts, earning him an “F” score from Gun Owners of America. I could go on.

Of course, the reason why influential Jews keeping clashing with the NRA is the simple fact that Jews lead the gun control campaign. Kevin MacDonald noted in January 2013 that:
The gun culture of traditional America, especially rural America has been particularly loathed by Jewish intellectuals. There is also a deep fear of Christian culture that is most vibrant in rural America.  For example, Israeli patriot Elliott Abrams acknowledges that the mainstream Jewish community in America “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.” According to Abrams, because of this vision, Jews have taken the lead in secularizing America.  In fact, the key role of Jewish organizations in shaping the Constitutional law on Church/State relations is well known. And it’s not much of a mystery who’s behind the war on Christmas. And by successfully changing immigration policy, Jews have reduced the political power of the rural White subculture of America to the point that even though roughly 7 in 10 White males voted Republican (and ~60% of White females), Obama and the Democrats won the recent election. Even if the current push for gun control fails, we can expect that Jewish organizations will continue the push to disarm White males. Jewish organizations are not at all against guns when they are in the hands of the police and other authorities. The ADL (see the ADL’s Law Enforcement Agency Resource Network) and the SPLC (Law Enforcement Training and Law Enforcement Resources) have made strong alliances with law enforcement in America.
Right, but while officials in the NRA are obviously aware of the prominence of Jews in the “control” campaign, their understanding of Jewish motivations is severely lacking.

I happen to think that linking the issue of gun ownership to the deaths of Jews during World War II is inappropriate, though for somewhat different reasons to Abe Foxman and the ADL. The fundamental problem I have with current NRA reasoning is that it betrays a lack of knowledge of Jewish history. NRA evocations of Jewish civilian casualties during World War II irritate me primarily because I think the group has so many more sophisticated and legitimate arguments to make on behalf of its cause; and bringing up the Holocaust in any argument has always struck me as intellectual cheap-shot.

On a deeper level however, the assumption underlying the current NRA approach is that governments historically have been the biggest threat to Jews. With the single exception of Nazi Germany, while some elites have had ambiguous relations with their Jewish populations (which on occasion led to expulsions) the overwhelming trend throughout Jewish history has been that Jews have been willing agents and partners of the ruling elite. Whether as Medieval tax farmers, early modern ‘Court Jew’ financiers, or the intellectual shock-troops of Bolshevism, Jews have only very rarely found themselves threatened by government or monarch.

Nowhere is this made more evident than in the simple fact that in Orthodox Judaism the prayer Hanotayn  Teshu-ah is not said for the nation or the people of the country in which the Jews have settled, but rather for the monarch or government. Gordon Freeman explains that “In fact, a prayer for the government is a feature of every type of prayer book of every land of the Jewish diaspora irrespective of the specific religious movement of the community.”[1] This stance is ancient. The rabbinic commentary, Pirke Avot, tells Jews to “pray for the welfare of the government, because were it not for the fear it inspires, every man would swallow his neighbor alive.”

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to extrapolate that what is really intended and understood by this injunction is that were it not for the fear inspired by the government, the goyim would swallow their Jewish neighbors alive. The favored Jewish position is thus to support a strong, feared, government which is capable of harnessing the resentments, real or imagined, of the gentile masses.

History is replete with examples of Jews benefiting from powerful, feared, governments, though they have been at pains to [literally] re-write this particular aspect of their history. In my analysis of medieval English Jewry I noted that, due to the strength of the Jew-government alliance, retaliatory actions were only capable of being carried out during the very brief period between the end of one reign and the beginning of another. I wrote that:
If we were to have before us today a thirteenth-century English peasant, he would find much to dispute in [Anthony] Julius’ claim that it was the Jew who stood at the bottom of the social and economic ladder. In fact it has been well established that Jews occupied the position of a privileged elite, under royal protection. B. Lionel Abrahams, upon examining centuries of royal charters concluded that “from their first arrival in the country, they had enjoyed a kind of informal Royal protection.”[18] Later, Henry II “gave and secured to the Jews special privileges so great as to arouse the envy of their neighbors,” granted them the use of their own courts, and “placed them under the special protection of the royal officers in each district.” In charging high rates of interest and preying upon the indebtedness of the lesser barons and the freeholders, Jews were successful in acquiring vast numbers of estates, which the king then gradually acquired by accepting them in lieu of tallages. The Jews had a free rein to carry on their regular, and highly profitable, money-lending activities as long as they continued in a mutually beneficial partnership designed to facilitate “the transfer of land from the small landowners to the upper stratum.” Unsurprisingly, Jews thus came to be seen as a hostile elite. They were viewed as such not just by the peasantry but by the barons, who chafed under their interest rates and at their inability to strike at those under royal protection. Irven Resnick writes in a 2007 article for the respected journal Church History that Jews were the “agents of hated royal fiscal policies,” as well as the usurers of the masses. The Crown was aware of this and took measures to increase security for Jews. A lot has been made about Jews first having to wear a badge identifying them at this time. What is far less often publicized is that these badges were first introduced by the English Crown, according to an article in the Jewish Quarterly Review, to better “facilitate their recognition by their protectors.”
Medieval Jews thus benefited from the powerful and feared status of the English Crown. Had it been possible, one can imagine that the prospect of the Crown seizing the arms of the barons would have been especially welcome in Jewish homes, since it would have represented the permanent neutralization of that particular threat to Jewish interests. Unfortunately for the Jews of Medieval England, the barons maintained and increased their arms, and were thus able to use the threat of force to influence the weakened Edward I to expel every Jew from the nation’s soil.

Possessing such knowledge makes it very frustrating to watch NRA spokesmen fumble with clumsy arguments when confronted with the increasingly apparent Jewish role in the gun control movement. Indeed, it would be much better for the NRA, and America, if the NRA confined itself to simply pointing out the preponderance of Jews acting against it. Reaching for ill-understood, and barely applicable, metaphors hasn’t helped its cause at all. The NRA is a lynchpin of Middle America, not cosmopolitan America. The organization should cease assuming that Jews are in any way “just like them,” in the sense that they are for the rights of the individual and against strong government. Looked at through the prism of historical precedent, the NRA and organized Jewry are fated to be natural enemies, with strikingly different priorities and objectives. NRA members may well fear “Big Government.” But one of the biggest Jewish anxieties is “weak government,” because in this scenario, so the reasoning goes, there is nothing to restrain the “lecherous rabble,” “the beasts of the field,” from violent retribution.

Returning to Washington, some of my relatives living just outside Vancouver have told me they’re having a hard time getting ammunition because of bulk-buying by nervous gun owners. As the amount of Jewish money pouring into the gun “control” movement increases daily, their anxieties can’t be dismissed as entirely unfounded. Kevin MacDonald ended his last TOO piece on the subject in a fashion I can’t improve upon, and his remarks bear repetition here:
It has often been observed that Jewish organizations have historically favored a strong central government rather than states’ rights. For example, Jacques Berlinerblau, writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, notes that “Jewish voters …  prefer cities and federal governments to backwaters and volatile statehouses. … All things equal, Jews like strong central governments, not a pastiche of local decision makers catering to majorities.” Although Jewish organizations would not phrase it this way, the net result is that the thrust of Jewish activism has been to favor a strong central government with a monopoly on lethal force. Given Jewish hostility to the traditional people and culture of White America, this is a very foreboding combination as we head into the era of a non-White majority America.
[1] C. Buck, Religious Myths and Visions of America: How Minority Faiths Redefined America’s World Role, (Praeger, 2009), p.67.


The Landmark Ancient Histories


Landmark Ancient Histories editor Robert B. Strassler
No group of people can hope to regain control of their destiny unless they possess two essential things: the will to survive as a people, and knowledge. The reader who seeks to have a well-guided will must have an unshakable sense of identity: an understanding of who he is and his relationship to the world around him.

This can come only from a broad knowledge of the history of his people. He needs to know their most distant origins, their characteristics, their strengths and weaknesses, and the ways in which they differ from other peoples.

Choosing books that provide such information presents problems of choice and evaluation. Is a given book about history or race or politics worth reading? When several choices are available, which is the best?  Some books are essential to a basic understanding of the task facing us as a people. Others are important, but primarily for filling in details.

The Landmark series reviewed here consists of essential works. They are the best of the several versions of each title available on the market in English.

Robert Strassler, the founding editor of the Landmark Ancient History series, is a “scholar without credentials”—a retired Jewish businessman who doesn’t read Greek or Latin or have a tenured job at a university, though after retirement he somehow landed a gig teaching ancient Greek literature in translation at Bard College at Simon’s Rock, a liberal arts school in Massachusetts.

Strassler had been introduced to the classics at “Fieldston,” described as a “prep school in the Bronx.” Fieldston is a curious anomaly—a wealthy, privately-owned neighborhood in New York City. Presumably the institution referred to is the Ethical Culture Fieldston School, an exclusive Jewish prep school. To peruse a list of some of its prominent, wealthy, and powerful alumni, see here. Later, as an undergraduate at Harvard, Strassler “pestered the deans into assigning him a former Oxford don to tutor him three hours a week in the history of ancient Greece.” He then graduated from Harvard Business School and joined the family business.

Although some sources say he headed a Tulsa, Oklahoma oil services company (originally purchased by his wealthy father) for 20 years, he said in a talk that he bought and turned around (or, presumably, dismantled and sold) failing businesses, which is what his father did also.

After he retired, Strassler thought teaching classics in translation would be easy, that he already knew everything he needed to know. But he quickly discovered that he could barely keep up with his lectures. He also observed how his students struggled with the material—and perceived the reason why.

This gave him the idea for a new approach to publishing the ancient classics with much more explanatory material, and he drew up a proposal outlining his vision. Unable to enlist qualified academics to do the work, he finally put together his own sample edition of Thucydides’ history of the Peloponnesian War with roughed-out maps, margin notes, an index, and list of appendixes.

Despite his lack of academic credentials, Strassler was able to interest Lithuanian-born Yale neoconservative professor Donald Kagan, an expert on the Peloponnesian War, in his project. Kagan, 82, who retired in 2013 but still teaches, ranks extremely high in the Yale hierarchy. The Left-wing Institute for Policy Studies notes that “Alongside scholars like Victor Davis Hanson, Kagan is one of several rightist [sic: neoconservative] hawks who specialize in classical literature.”

He is also the patriarch of an influential Jewish neoconservative family whose members are powerful cheerleaders for US-backed war and revolution in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Kagan’s sons are well-known Establishment activists Robert Kagan and Frederick Kagan. Robert’s wife is Victoria Nuland, US State Department spokesman from 2011 to 2013 and current Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. She famously said “Fuck the EU” when maneuvering for revolution in the Ukraine to harm Russia. Frederick’s wife is Jewish militarist Kimberly Kagan, who has taught at West Point, Yale, Georgetown University, and American University, heads the Institute for the Study of War, and shapes US policy through influential media organs and by working as a high-level military adviser to top field commanders. (And it pays well, too!)

After Donald Kagan introduced Strassler to his book agent, Simon & Schuster’s Free Press agreed to publish the work. Strassler’s editor at the Free Press was Adam Bellow, son of Nobel Prize-winning Jewish novelist Saul Bellow. As editor, Adam Bellow has been instrumental in the publication of such books as Indian author Dinesh D’Souza’s Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (1991), homosexual author David Brock’s The Real Anita Hill: The Untold Story (1993) (Brock has since become a Leftist and founder of Media Matters for America, a self-appointed policeman of politically incorrect speech), and Richard J. Herrnstein’s and Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (1994).

Strassler perceptively notes that although existing editions of ancient works
may present skillful translations from the Greek, [they] make little attempt to provide sufficient background information required now by the general reader in order to comprehend these ancient texts. These editions contain only a small number of often inadequate maps, sparse indexes, incomplete (and sometimes incorrect) chronologies, and few if any helpful appendices.
The Landmark Thucydides (cover)
The Landmark Thucydides (1996)
It is easy to cite examples of why the Landmark approach is so necessary. Here is a sentence from Herodotus about a man named Gelon, a tyrant of Syracuse in Sicily: “An ancestor of Gelon had come from the island of Telos, which lies off Triopion, and he settled at Gela, for he was not left behind when Gela was colonized by Antiphemos and the Lindians who had set out from Rhodos.” (7.153) Without external aids, this does not convey much meaning.

Again, describing events in pre-Roman, Greek-settled southern Italy:

Much later, the Tarantines attempted to expel them [Messapian Iapygians, originally from Crete] from these [cities] but were badly defeated. In fact, the men from both Taras and Rhegion suffered such a crippling disaster here that this was the greatest slaughter of Hellenes that is known to us. The citizens of Rhegion had been forced by Mikythos son of Choiros to go to the aid of the Tarantines, and 3,000 of them died. Under such circumstances, there was no count taken of Tarantine losses. This Mikythos was a servant of Anaxilaos, who had left him behind and entrusted Rhegion to him, and he is also the same man who, after being exiled from Rhegion, settled in Arcadian Tegea and dedicated those numerous statues at Olympia. (7.170)

It is helpful to know where all of these places are. After writing the above lines, Herodotus concludes in his characteristic manner, “What happened to the Rhegines and Tarantines, however, is parenthetical to my narrative.”

This is not to imply that Herodotus is a difficult writer; on the contrary, he is exceptionally clear. But most of the individuals and places he discusses have no meaning to modern readers. A translation I own by George Rawlinson contains no textual aids whatsoever—not even the most rudimentary ones. You can imagine how difficult it is to struggle through something like that. There is no way to really understand what you’re reading.

Useful insight into Herodotus’ monumental achievement is provided by a simple question posed by Professor Donald Lateiner in his Barnes and Noble edition of The Histories: “Imagine that all written, audio, video, and electronic records have been destroyed, yet you want to write a history of World War II or the Vietnam War. How will you go about it?” (p. 514). Moreover, The Histories is far, far more than a war book. The vast scope of the text historically, geographically, ethnographically, and in terms of time-depth is staggering—not to mention the fact that Herodotus was the first to do anything of this kind.

If you have any interest in reading and truly comprehending the Father of History, this is definitely the volume to buy. A review of it was published on Counter-Currents in 2010.

Strassler regards the maps as among the most important contributions of the series. Except for the Landmark Thucydides, the authority for them is the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, Richard J. Talbert, ed. (Rutgers, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 2000). Strassler writes:

Every known city, town, shrine, river, mountain, or other geographic feature that appears in the narrative is referenced in the text by a footnote to a nearby map or, in some cases where the site is tangential to the plot, to a reference map at the very end of the book. Those maps which display many labels employ a simple coordinate system to help readers search for particular sites. In the interest of clarity, each map displays the names of only those features that appear in the surrounding text. If the location of a place is unknown, the footnote says so.

The Landmark Herodotus (cover)
The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories (2007)
With a few exceptions such as the Black Sea (called the Euxine Sea by the Greeks), or well-known places such as Athens, most modern names of cities, rivers, and so forth, are not provided. For the series’ general Key to Maps see here. For a sample map from Book Nine of Herodotus’ The Histories click here.
 
Beginning at the top you have the most-encompassing map, with a square designating the more detailed inset map just below it. Scale lines in the bottom left-hand corner of each map designate relevant distances in kilometers and miles.

The maps occur every few pages, shifting to fit the geographic area being discussed. I use a plastic-covered paperclip projecting from the side of the book to mark the one I’m on, because it is necessary to flip back and forth every page or two from the footnotes identifying place names and geographic features in the text.

In a lecture, Strassler gave an amusing example of how useless most maps contained in modern editions of ancient works are by displaying a sample of one from another book and pointing out why it was so inadequate. I checked the map in my Barnes and Noble edition of Herodotus (not the one he was referring to) and it had all the failings he mentioned. It’s odd how you can be aware you’re experiencing shortcomings in a presentation causing barriers to comprehension without being explicitly conscious of exactly what the problem is until it is explained to you.

An extremely useful chronological outline of events in each book is presented at the beginning, enabling readers to obtain a quick overview of historical dates, places, passages in the text, and short descriptions of each event in a single line. For example, in Arrian: Autumn 336 – MACEDONIA – 1.1.1-3 [the book section] - Philip II is assassinated, Alexander becomes king. This scheme is repeated in the running heads at the top of each page, informing readers where and when the action is taking place and enabling the fullest possible comprehension.

Extensive footnotes, appendices on specialized topics pertaining to the text, modern photographs, illustrations, margin notes, glossaries, indexes, bibliographies, and other aids round out the supporting framework of each book without, believe it or not, excessive clutter. One cannot, of course, read them like novels—they require work—but one can at least read them with near-complete understanding.

Strassler’s first volume, The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War (1996), a detailed description of the mutually destructive war between Athens and Sparta in 431–404 BC by an Athenian general who participated in it—published, as mentioned, with the help of Yale’s Donald Kagan—was a comparative hit. It reportedly sold 30,000 copies in hardcover and more than 40,000 in paperback. According to Forbes, Strassler then “scored a big advance from Pantheon, using that money to fund a classics factory, of which he is chief executive officer.”

The Landmark Xenophon’s Hellenika (2009)
The Landmark Xenophon’s Hellenika (2009)

The Greek writer, historian, soldier, mercenary, and student of Socrates Xenophon (c. 430–354 BC) is known for writing histories about his own time. Though Athenian by birth, he identified and closely associated with the Spartans, among whom he lived for many years. Hellenika is a principal source for the final seven years of the Peloponnesian War not covered by Thucydides, and the war’s aftermath. It is considered a continuation of the History of the Peloponnesian War. Hellenika has also been translated into English under the title History of My Times.

One critic’s observation about the Introduction to Hellenika by David Thomas is worth quoting:

The lengthy and informative Introduction suffers from its frequent reliance upon recycled, stale accusations about Xenophon’s “bias” and “prejudice,” especially as causes of certain allegedly “startling” omissions in his text, and hyperbolic speculation about his “Grinding of Axes” (xlvi–lvi) or lack of “Trustworthiness” (lxiii–lxv). A more even-handed, less querulous Introduction to the Hellenika would help readers to engage and understand this work on its own terms, especially if the activity of intellectually earnest reading is predicated on not presuming to know better than the author what he should, or should not, have written. To conclude, as the author of this Introduction does, that Xenophon is unreliable “as a historian,” because his account “fails to accommodate much of what seems obviously important to us,” reveals much more about the preoccupations and prejudices of certain modern “scholars” (“us”) than it does about Xenophon.

Xenophon’s most famous work, Anabasis, slated for future publication in the Landmark series, was based on his youthful participation with a group of Greek mercenaries in the campaign of Cyrus the Younger to claim the Persian throne from his brother King Artaxerxes II.

When the ill-fated enterprise failed, the commanding officers of the Greek mercenaries were treacherously murdered by the Persian satrap Tissaphernes. Xenophon was among the new officers chosen to command the Greek force of 10,000 men now stranded leaderless in the heart of the hostile Persian Empire. Assuming responsibility for the retreat, Xenophon led the men to safety in the ancient Greek colony of Trapezus (now Trabzon, Turkey) on the Black Sea, a 1,500-mile march lasting five months through unknown territory against disheartening obstacles of terrain and weather, savage enemies, and failure of supplies. Their triumphant survival is attributed largely to Xenophon’s resourcefulness, foresight, and tact.
The Landmark Arrian-The Campaigns of Alexander
The Landmark Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander (2010)

Arrian (Lucius Flavius Arrianus) (c. 86–160 AD) was a Roman-era, ethnically Greek officer, governor of Cappadocia in Asia Minor under the Roman Emperor Hadrian, and historian who hailed originally from northwest Turkey. His Landmark volume, sometimes known in English as the Anabasis of Alexander (not to be confused with Xenophon’s much earlier Anabasis just discussed), is probably the best and most complete extant ancient account of the vast military campaigns of Alexander the Great. Among other authorities, it relies on the writings of two of Alexander’s generals, Ptolemy I and Aristobulus, for its data.

Arrian wrote his classic account of the 11-year Macedonian campaign against the Persian Empire, beginning with the invasion of Persian Ionia and ending 3,000 miles to the East at the Indus River in India, nearly five hundred years after the death of the conqueror. In a review of The Landmark Arrian, the fanatically pro-Israel, neoconservative, philo-Semitic professor Victor Davis Hanson (also a contributor to the Landmark series) wrote:

Alexander posed as the emissary of a civilizing Hellenism as he killed more Greeks—whether besieged Thebans or mercenaries in the service of Darius III—than had perished in the earlier invasions [during the Persian Wars described by Herodotus] of Darius I and Xerxes combined. Yet, as proof of his literary flair, he spared the house of the poet Pindar, while killing 6,000 Thebans, enslaving another 30,000, and leveling the great city of Oedipus.

In multicultural fashion, Alexander arranged mass marriages between his Macedonian soldiers and Iranian women, incorporated Persian elites in his administration, and deferred to the conquered by wearing native dress—even as he had executed or murdered his closest associates, Parmenio, Philotas, Cleitus, and the philosopher Callisthenes, and wiped out entire villages in serial fashion while pacifying Afghanistan.

Those accustomed to thinking of ancient Greece and Persia in dichotomous East-West, Europe-versus-Asia, Greek-Barbarian terms will be surprised in reading Herodotus, Xenophon, and Arrian to discover how many Greeks allied and fought alongside the Persians—even against their fellow Hellenes.

One reviewer commented that thanks to the unique editorial aids in Arrian’s book “we can ‘watch’ the route of Alexander’s campaigns, as if progressing step by step with his army—from Europe, through Asia to India and back to Babylon. It may be observed that all the tools used here evoke the ancients’ vividness, ἐνάργεια.” This is true of the Landmark Herodotus as well, where one experiences increasing tension as the massive Persian forces in 480 BC inexorably advance toward the clash at Thermopylae and the naval battles off Artemision and Salamis, gathering strength every step of the way through recruitment of local manpower.

I intended to alert readers to a serious problem with one of the paperback editions of these volumes, but am now unable to find the information. I distinctly recall while shopping for them on Amazon that one of the paperbacks—I think it was Xenophon’s Hellenika—had an unusually high number of negative reviews, all for one reason—cheap binding. Reader after reader reported that the book quickly came apart in normal use. These included students and teachers in classes in which it was used as a text, who said it happened to almost everyone in the class.

This is a serious issue, but either the complaints have been removed or I was looking at a different page than I can find now. It seemed deeply ironic to have such meticulous scholarship torpedoed by shoddy bookbinding.

While few important ancient classics are available in Landmark’s extremely useful format, or apparently ever will be, those that are are well worth owning and reading. I began with Herodotus, the most important of the available authors to me, until the counterintuitive thought struck me that the books might go out of print. I then bought the others, save for Xenophon’s Hellenika, which I think was the one with serious manufacturing defects noted by multiple readers.

Strassler says he is surprised that others have not copied his approach. Indeed, the method would be extremely helpful in many, many areas—and eras—of European history and literature, from the dawn of writing through the 19th century. Each generation and every individual begins de novo. We do not automatically know the past. This is especially true today, when a hostile culture systematically deprives us of it, attacking, belittling, lying about, and even erasing it: “Hey hey, ho ho, Western Culture’s got to go!

Volumes such as these make it easier for people to engage in a meaningful way with those who went before, and to understand who they—and we—really are.

The Landmark Series
IN PRINT:
The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War, Robert B. Strassler ed., newly-revised Richard Crawley (1874) trans. (New York: The Free Press, 1996)
The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories, Robert B. Strassler ed., new trans. by Andrea L. Purvis (New York: Pantheon Books, 2007)
The Landmark Xenophon’s Hellenika, Robert B. Strassler ed., new trans. by John Marincola (New York: Pantheon Books, 2009)
The Landmark Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander, James Romm ed., new trans. by Pamela Mensch (New York: Pantheon Books, 2010)

FORTHCOMING:
Julius Caesar
Polybius
Xenophon, Anabasis

Gov. Rick Perry Says Illegal Aliens Responsible for More than 600,000 Crimes -- in Texas Alone

via American Freedom Party

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas told Sean Hannity that illegal aliens are behind an estimated 8,000 sexual assaults, 3,000 homicides, and about 642,000 total crimes in his state alone.



Rick Perry on the Texas Border - Illegal Aliens CrossingSEAN HANNITY, HOST: Joining me now to outline his plan to actually send the National Guard to the border, Texas Governor Rick Perry. Governor, welcome back. Good to see you, sir.

GOV. RICK PERRY, R-TEXAS: Yes, sir. Thank you, Sean.

HANNITY: Have you heard from the president at all since you met with him when I was down with you on the border? Has he gotten back in contact with you?

PERRY: No. Obviously, we’re moving ahead. We’re not going to wait for the federal government, whether it’s the administration or for Washington, D.C. For that matter. The crisis is full-blown. Everyone understands what the issue is here.

And not only have we been dealing with this for a number of years now, it’s come to the point where the details of the criminal activities have become so clear that we no longer can wait for Washington to secure the border. And Texas is going to do it with our law enforcement and with our National Guard.

HANNITY: You know, Governor, I just see this pattern, a lack of urgency by the president! We have a crisis at the border. We’ve got our closest ally in Israel under fire in a ground war and we’re lecturing them to pull back after 1,600 rockets have fired in. We got a VA where our vets are dying, and nothing has happened in the two months since that has been announced. And on top of that, you know, you have Sergeant Tahmooressi’s rotting in a prison. He needs medical attention.

What’s going on? Where’s the president’s urgency here? Does that not shock you?

PERRY: Well, there certainly seems to be a hesitancy to act by this administration, but I can’t get into the president’s mind. I don’t know what he’s thinking. All I have to work with is what reality is.

And the reality is that Texas citizens are being put in jeopardy by this porous border. And Texans no longer, and I think Americans no longer can see a border that is open for the type of individuals that are coming across.

Sean, there have been over the course of the last five years, since the fall of ’08, over 203,000 individuals who have come into Texas illegally that have been booked into our county jails. Those individuals have been accounted for over 3,000 homicides and over 8,000 sexual assaults.

We can’t afford to wait for Washington to secure this border. We’ve had enough, and we’re going to secure the southern border.

HANNITY: Governor, you know, I’ve been down to the border, everywhere from San Diego to the Rio Grande twice now. And my — the time that I spent with you in the briefing before we went out on a helicopter tour and out with the border patrol, the Texas border patrol, was very revealing. You had a Navy SEAL. I think his name was J.J., if I’m not mistaken, you know, gave a presentation — 642,000 crimes, some of them real serious crimes, like you’re mentioning here, in seven years against Texas citizens by illegal immigrants.

The Spiritual Advantages of a Young Romantic Commitment

via Traditionalist Youth Network

The princple of non-commitment in relationships was preached in the West Coast environment I grew up in. To my embarrassment, I’ll share the personal note that my single father’s advice, all respect due to him, was to “wait until prom night.” I heard this at a tender and underdeveloped age (I was a late bloomer) and was utterly disturbed by the unromantic notion. I was equally appalled when, confiding in a mature woman I viewed as a mentor, I was met with the response “at least he was realistic.” Such was one of the earliest signs I had that I was would be living in a world that was averse to my own inner sense of truth and intuition.

As I’ve grown older and expressed wishes for a more committed romantic arrangement, namely the path to marriage, I’ve encountered the protests “you’re too young” and “you still have plenty of time for that.” I’ll admit that my intense personality may have the effect that when I discuss subjects with passion my listeners incorrectly perceive despair, when in fact I am honestly praising and striving for an ideal greater than my own personal circumstances. The protests I face are commonly followed by warnings against becoming dependent on a man and admonishments against romanticizing…well, romance. Allow me to also to also provide the background that I had not clearly vocalized my desires until 22, after I had graduated college. I am of the opinion it is only natural to seek out a partner once the civic duties that were asked of me had been fulfilled.

At 26, I still lead a single lifestyle, and however unwillingly I’ve put on the clothes of a career woman. The experience has given me valuable insight into the results of the non-commitment preachings. I’ve also used the time constructively to reflect of the nature of ideal marriage. One of the most convincing concepts I’ve stumbled across is that of the start-up marriage laid out in the Wall Street Journal by Charles Murray, Advice for a Happy Life.

The modern world’s ideal is putting off marriage until the late twenties or early thirties, when young adults have received an education and established themselves in a career. This is the concept of the merger marriage. With all the arguable advantages of stability and self-actualization, there exist a few grave disadvantages – the least of which is not the patterns of rejection of failed relationships on the human psychology in terms of self-worth and sense of direction in life or the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Yet, I’d like to offer my personal story as an illustration of a point not often considered: I can tell you that as a woman who has traveled the world and developed a unique set of counter-current beliefs, by far the single greatest challange in search of a mate has been finding a man who is of my like fiber.

Murray’s piece offers quite a bit of valuable advice to young adults. I do not wish to misrepresent the work by only presenting one facet of it, but out of interest of focus of topic, I’ll close his involvement in this discussion by noting his suggestion that the advantages of the marrying young are often overlooked. Murray coins the term start-up marriage to describe unions formed in the early twenties. Young couples face life’s struggles as a team, and eventually look back on their hard work and growth together when the they enjoy the fruits. Relating to my point about like fiber, friends of mine who married young have told me that they cannot truely discern if it was their likeness that attracted them to one another in the first place or if their likeness came about through their union.

I suspect the latter.

If the reader despairs at the fact that his age makes the ideal unobtainable for him, let him take comfort by my noting that I could not be more confident that I too will be blessed with the romantic ideal despite the opportunity of a start-up marriage having passed. Choosing a mate can be a daunting task, and it is helpful to seek out a commitment to truth and transcendence in another as a guiding principle in the search. Personal circumstances aside, it is crucial to remember that ideals are targets for achievement and that they are needed for guidance even if no one individual leads a life fulfilling all ideals.

Pairing off at a young age is the custom of our ancestors, and it may have taken the event of this most recent dark age to shed light on the positivity and health such a practice promotes. If traditionalists reject the materialism of the modern world for its attitude of disposal and lack of fulfillment, it is only consistent of them to reject serial monogamy or the more degenerate forms of non-commitment relationships. Furthermore, the principle of community is quasi-synonymous with traditionalism when it is understood that tradition is born of the transfer of customs and beliefs from one generation to the next. If it can be poetically expressed that traditionalism is the means by which wisdom of the ancients is applied to the lives of the young, this discussion of love and commitment demonstrates that the unguided youth has proven its folly.

A Lack of Diversity in Social Psychology?

via Theden

Jonathan Haidt, who delivered a talk in 2011 on the overwhelming progressivism of his field, social psychology, has co-authored a paper titled “Political Diversity Will Improve Social Psychological Science”.

In the paper, Haidt and his co-authors argue that social psychology suffers for lack of political diversity: in other words, that its domination by progressives severely impedes its ability to converge on the truth, to reject inaccurate theories that progressivism likes and replace them with accurate ones that may cause problems for the movement.

The pattern seen in social psychology, he points out, exists in the social sciences and humanities in general:
There are many academic fields in which surveys find self-identified conservatives to be about as numerous as self-identified liberals; typically business, computer science, engineering, health sciences, and technical/vocational fields (Zipp & Fenwick, 2006; Gross & Simmons, 2007). In the social sciences and humanities, however, there is a stronger imbalance. For instance, recent surveys find that 58 – 66 percent of social science professors in the United States identify as liberals, while only 5 – 8 percent identify as conservatives, and that self-identified Democrats outnumber Republicans by ratios of at least 8 to 1 (Gross & Simmons, 2007; Klein & Stern, 2009; Rothman & Lichter, 2008). A similar situation is found in the humanities where surveys find that 52 – 77 percent of humanities professors identify as liberals, while only 4 – 8 percent identify as conservatives, and that self-identified Democrats outnumber Republicans by ratios of at least 5:1 (Gross & Simmons, 2007; Rothman & Lichter, 2008). In psychology the imbalance is slightly stronger: 84 percent identify as liberal while only 8 percent identify as conservative (Gross & Simmons, 2007; Rothman & Lichter, 2008). That is a ratio of 10.5 to 1. In the United States as a whole, the ratio of liberals to conservatives is roughly 1 to 2 (Gallup, 2010).
socpsych libcon

This should not be surprising: social sciences and humanities are fields with direct political applications, unlike engineering or computer science; a movement that wants to take power would do well to capture them. Under a regime of scientific governance, any faction that wants to govern must first capture science.
The paper continues:
Psychology professors were as likely to report voting Republican as Democrat in presidential contests in the 1920s. From the 1930s through 1960, they were more likely to report voting for Democrats, but substantial minorities voted for Willkie, Eisenhower, and Nixon (in 1960). By 2006, however, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans had climbed to more than 11:1 (Gross & Simmons, 2007; Rothman & Lichter, 2008).
Furthermore, the trend toward political homogeneity seems to be continuing: whereas 10% of faculty respondents self-identified as conservative, only 2% of graduate students and postdocs did so (Inbar, 2013, personal communication). This pattern is consistent with the broader trends throughout psychology illustrated in Figure 1: the field is shifting leftward, the ratio of liberals to conservatives is now greater than 10:1, and there are hardly any conservative students in the pipeline.
This is detrimental because, “if left unchecked, an academic field can become a cohesive moral community, creating a shared reality (Hardin & Higgins, 1996) that subsequently blinds its members to morally or ideologically undesirable hypotheses and unanswered but important scientific questions (Haidt, 2012).”

There are, of course, examples of this blinding at work, though examples can only be found in cases where the progressive theory has already been refuted. Here is one listed in the paper: (with paragraph breaks added)
Since the 1930s, social psychologists have been proclaiming the inaccuracy of social stereotypes, despite lacking evidence of such inaccuracy. Evidence has seemed unnecessary because stereotypes have been, in effect, stereotyped as inherently nasty and inaccurate (see Jussim, 2012a for a review).
Some group stereotypes are indeed hopelessly crude and untestable. But some may rest on valid empiricism—and represent subjective estimates of population characteristics (e.g. the proportion of people who drop out of high school, are victims of crime, or endorse policies that support women at work, see Jussim, 2012a, Ryan, 2002 for reviews).
In this context, it is not surprising that the rigorous empirical study of the accuracy of factual stereotypes was initiated by one of the very few self-avowed conservatives in social psychology—Clark McCauley (McCauley & Stitt, 1978). Since then, dozens of studies by independent researchers have yielded evidence that stereotype accuracy (of all sorts of stereotypes) is one of the most robust effects in all of social psychology (Jussim, 2012a).
Here is a clear example of the value of political diversity: a conservative social psychologist asked a question nobody else thought (or dared) to ask, and found results that continue to make many social psychologists uncomfortable. McCauley’s willingness to put the assumption of stereotype inaccuracy to an empirical test led to the correction of one of social psychology’s most longstanding errors.
And another:
Prejudice and intolerance have long been considered the province of the political right (e.g., Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950; Duckitt, 2001; Lindner & Nosek, 2009). Indeed, since Allport (1954), social psychologists have suspected that there is a personality type associated with generalized prejudice toward a variety of social groups (Akrami, Ekehammar, & Bergh, 2011), which they have linked to political conservatism (Roets & van Hiel, 2011). More recently, however, several scholars have noted that the groups typically considered targets of prejudice in such research programs are usually low status and often left-leaning (e.g., African-Americans and Communists; for more examples and further arguments, see Chambers, Schlenker & Collisson, 2013 and Crawford & Pilanski, 2013).
Using research designs that include both left-leaning and right-leaning targets, and using nationally representative as well as student and community samples, these researchers have demonstrated that prejudice is potent on both the left and right.
Conservatives are prejudiced against stereotypically left-leaning targets (e.g., African-Americans), whereas liberals are prejudiced against stereotypically right-leaning targets (e.g., religious Christians; see Chambers et al., 2013; Crawford & Pilanski, 2013; Wetherell, Brandt, & Reyna, 2013).
Summarizing these recent findings, Brandt, Reyna, Chambers, Crawford, and Wetherell (2014) put forward the ideological conflict hypothesis, which posits that people across the political spectrum are prejudiced against ideologically dissimilar others.
Once again, the shared moral narrative of social psychology seems to have restricted the range of research: the investigation of prejudice was long limited to prejudice against the targets that liberals care most about. But the presence of a non-liberal researcher (John Chambers is a libertarian) led to an expansion of the range of targets, which might, over time, lead the entire field to a more nuanced view of the relationship between politics and prejudice.
Theden has covered this process before: Bob Altemeyer, who researched ‘right-wing authoritarianism’a continuation of the ‘F-scale’ research carried out by Theodor Adorno, a Communist who thought support for rightism was caused by psychological defects—said that “there’s no such thing as a left-wing authoritarian”, and that such a person is “the Loch Ness monster of political psychology”. Subsequent research found this claim to be false.

In addition, some RWA researchers, including Altemeyer, believed that ‘right-wing authoritarians’ wanted to use authorities against all groups; but the research of George Yancey (a Christian) found a negative correlation between ‘right-wing authoritarianism’ and willingness to use authority to suppress conservative Christians.

Another example covered here before relates to Haidt’s own research on moral foundations theory. The original version of his theory, and the one that was widely reported on in the media (which itself is very progressive), stated that there are two different sorts of morality which correspond to the two political factions in America: whereas conservatives make judgments based on concerns of harm, fairness, loyalty, obedience to authority, and purity, liberals only care about harm and fairness. These results were later revised: Haidt added concerns of freedom to account for libertarians, and wrote a blog post about the possible existence of liberal concerns for purity.

These results are no surprise: some of the questions about authority (“[When deciding whether an action is right or wrong, I would give strong consideration to] whether or not someone conformed to the traditions of society.”, “If I were a soldier and disagreed with my commanding officer’s orders, I would obey anyway because that is my duty.”, “Men and women each have different roles to play in society.”) and purity (“Whether or not someone acted in a way that God would approve of” “Chastity is an important and valuable virtue.”) are framed in conservative terms; and it’s clear that liberals like to think of themselves as concerned only with harm and fairness, so measures of authority and purity that asked about those measures in exactly those terms would be likely to come up with Haidt’s results: even if a liberal agreed with the statements or give consideration to the questions that the moral foundations survey asks about, he would be less likely to recognize that he would do so than a conservative would be. It may be more revealing to also ask about, for example, obedience to the authority of college professors, or whether something is organic or in harmony with nature.

It’s clear that progressives are concerned with purity on some level: examples of them attacking their political opponents as ‘icky’, ‘gross’, or ‘repulsive’ are easy to find. The Prime Minister of Sweden called nationalism a “revolting disease” in a speech, and exhorted the Swedish people to “let go of the ancient and disgusting thought that what is deviant is dangerous”.

Jonathan Haidt used to be a progressive; though he now calls himself a moderate, his research may well have fallen prey (though at least he noticed) to exactly the bias he describes: working within the shared narrative of progressivism, assuming its presuppositions and buying into its narratives. What better example could there be for his thesis?

Live And Let Live

via Western Spring

First they came for the Fascists . . .

First, they came for the Fascists and I did not speak up because I wasn’t a Fascist. Then they came for the Nazis, the neo-Fascists, the neo-Nazis and I did not speak up because I wasn’t any of those either. What did I say? “Live and let live”,  and I got on with living my life.

Then they came for the anti-Communists and I did not speak up, because I did not consider that Communism or Communists were a threat. “Live and let live”, I said, I and got on with my life. What did I say? “Live and let live”,  and I got on with living my life.

Then they came for the anti-Semites, the anti-Zionists, those who said the Jews had too much power, those opposed to Israel, and those who when referring to the Jews did not do so in sufficiently glowing terms. They came for those who were suspicious of the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, Common Purpose, and the freemasons. I did not speak up because I did not understand what all the fuss was about and was too busy living my life to take much interest. “Live and let live”, said I. What did I say? “Live and let live”, and I got on with living my life.

Live & Let Live 1Then they came for the racists and racialists, and I did not speak up, because I did not consider myself a racist. “Live and let live”, said I. What did I say? “Live and let live”, and I got on with living my life.

Then they came for the White supremacists, the White separatists, the nationalists, the identitarians and the patriots and I did not speak out, because I was too busy living my life. “Live and let live”, said I. What did I say? “Live and let live”, and I got on with living my life.

Then they came for the scientists, the geneticists, the sociobiologists who said that races were different, that men and women were different and I did not speak out, because I was not a scientist. “Live and let live”, said I. What did I say? “Live and let live”, and I got on with living my life.

Then they came for the sexists and homophobes, transvestitophobes and transgenderophobes, LBGT’ophobes and those who tried to expose paedophile networks among senior politicians and I did not speak up, because I did not consider myself a sexist or a homophobe and I didn’t know what the other labels meant and assumed the politicians must have everything in hand. Then the politicians passed a law reducing the age of consent to 12 years old, so they could legally and lawfully bugger little boys and the Press said it was a wonderful day for equality. “Live and let live”, said I. What did I say? “Live and let live”, and I got on with living my life.

Then they came for the Traditionalists, the anti-abortionists, those who smacked their children if they misbehaved, those who did not give their children sweets or restricted their television viewing if they misbehaved – as they labelled it emotional abuse. They came for those who were against permissiveness and those whose religious beliefs hadn’t moved with the times. They came for those who thought that marriage should be between a man and a woman and they came for those who thought that children should only be adopted by married couples . They came for those who objected to sex changes, breast enlargements and botox injections being funded by the taxpayer and I did not speak up, because I was too busy living my life to take much notice. “Live and let live”, said I. What did I say? “Live and let live”, and I got on with living my life.

Then they came for those who were opposed to the Brussels bureaucrats and the Strasbourg fat cats, and the United States of Europe, and although I was concerned, I did not speak up, because I was far too busy living my life. “Live and let live”, said I. What did I say? “Live and let live”, and I got on with living my life.

Then they came for the extremists, the haters, the scaremongerers, and those the authorities assured us were considering thinking about thinking about plotting violence, and I did not speak up, because I didn’t like violence, and as for extremists, well society and things were changing so quickly I didn’t know what an extremist was anymore and anyway I was sure that I wasn’t an extremist. “Live and let live”, said I. What did I say? “Live and let live”, and I got on with living my life.

Then they came for those who home schooled their children and for those who said the national curriculum and the education system was nothing but an exercise in brainwashing. They came for those who refused to let their children be subject to a mass of new inoculations and I did not speak up, because I was too busy living my life to pay much attention. “Live and let live”, said I. What did I say? “Live and let live”, and I got on with living my life.

Then they came for those who opposed modern art, modern architecture and preferred classical music or folk music to rap music. They came for those who opposed the uglification of our cities, our towns and our villages. They came for those who opposed the concreting over and destruction of our countryside to build new towns for immigrants. They came for those who were opposed to fracking and they even came for the blasted Morris dancers! And I did not speak up, because I was too busy living my life. “Live and let live”, said I. What did I say? “Live and let live”, and I got on with living my life.

Then they came for those who opposed the usurers, money lenders, the shylocks, the pay-day loaners, the loan sharks, the financial scamsters and the banksters and I did not speak up as I’m sure the politicians knew what was best and anyway I had lots of money in the bank and I didn’t want to rock the boat or the banks, and I was too busy living my life. “Live and let live”, said I. What did I say? “Live and let live”, and I got on with living my life.

Then they banned the flying of the union flag or the St George’s cross and they banned them in the interests of community harmony, and I was surprised, but did not speak up when they came for those who still flew them, as I was sure our government knew what they were doing, and anyway, only nasty groups flew such flags and I was too busy living my life. “Live and let live”, said I. What did I say? “Live and let live”, and I got on with living my life.

Then they came for those little old ladies who wore a cross or a crucifix on their necklace. They came for them, because such a symbols were offensive and only nasty people would wear such an offensive symbol. Then they came for the priests, the nuns, the monks, the clergy and the children who went to Sunday school, and they even came for the followers of Pastor Niemuller and indeed any other people who dared call themselves Christians and I was shocked, but did not speak up as such a measure was necessary for community harmony. “Live and let live”, said I. What did I say? “Live and let live”, and I got on with living my life.

Then they came for those who were opposed to foreign wars, opposed to our boys being sent abroad to fight and die in wars that America, Israel and the Zionists wanted us to fight. Wars our nation had no conceivable reason for getting involved in, and I did not speak up, because I had no sons in the Army and I was sure the politicians knew what they were doing, and anyway I was too busy living my life. “Live and let live”, said I. What did I say? “Live and let live”, and I got on with living my life.

Then they came for those who were opposed to inter-racial marriage and miscegenation. They came for those who were opposed to mass immigration. They came for those who said that it would be a bad thing if whites became a minority in Britain. They came for white girls who refused to go out on a date with a black or Asian man when asked. They came for those who refused to hire an aids ridden, homosexual, heroin addict as a babysitter for their children. They came for those who said that if Doreen Lawrence was made a peer of the Realm and given a seat in the House of Lords, because her black son was supposedly stabbed to death by whites in a racist attack in South London, then why hasn’t Mrs Gregory who lives in the same area and has had TWO white sons stabbed to death by blacks in racist attacks ALSO been made a peer of the House of Lords? And I did not speak out, because I was afraid. “Live and let live”, said I. What did I say? “Live and let live”, and I got on with living my life.

Then they came for those who were politically incorrect, and those who published, sold or read the wrong sort of books or browsed politically incorrect websites and I did not speak out, because I was not sure whether speaking out was in itself politically incorrect, and anyway I was too busy living my life to read books. “Live and let live”, said I. What did I say? “Live and let live”, and I got on with living my life.

Then the government legalised all drugs, because they said it was too difficult to police and enforce anti-drug laws, when they had so much more important things to do such as enforcing political correctness. Anyway the government said that legalising drugs would make our cities more vibrant and more cosmopolitan. So then they came for those who were against the legalisation of all drugs and although I thought the government was foolish to legalise all drugs, I was too busy living my life to give the matter much thought. “Live and let live”, said I. What did I say? “Live and let live”, and I got on with living my life.

Then they came for those who did not own a television and I did not speak out, because I was afraid. I’d thrown my TV away and so I went out and bought a new one, but I never turned it on. Then they came for those who did not have a big enough TV and I went out a bought a bigger one. Then they came for those who did not watch enough television, so I turned it on 24/7, but kept the sound down. Then they came for those who said such laws were Orwellian and I was very afraid. “Live and let live”, said I. What did I say? “Live and let live”, and I got on with living my life.

Then they came for those who proclaimed inconvenient truths, or who said we were living under a liberal tyranny, or who declared that if current trends and policies continued the White race would be very soon be extinct and I did not speak out because speaking out was now illegal. “Live and let live”, said I. What did I say? “Live and let live”, and I got on with living my life.

Then they came for me. They came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I asked those who came for me why they came for me and they said it was because … I …was… White.

But “Live and let live!” said I, and they just smiled and they told me that “Live and let live” was just a slogan to lure the masses to sleep and that the penalty for being White was … death.

The Awakening: reality is a painful teacher . . .

Then I realised the horrible reality of it all, my eyes finally opened to the truth.

Then I realised that I hadn’t been living my life at all, not really. I realised that I’d been living the life that the authorities WANTED me to live. I realised that all I’d been doing was slaving away to earn money to buy things I didn’t need and to pay steadily increasing taxes to tyrannical governments who would use the money to actively destroy everything that made life worthwhile including our race, our culture, our communities, our families and our nation.

Blind AngelI knew that a government should care for and look after the people it is governing. I realised that our successive governments have been doing and continue to do, everything they can do to exterminate the people they govern and replace them with foreigners! That is government by a governing elite that hates the people it governs. That such a government could only be controlled by an alien tribe of people that regarded the White Race as its hereditary enemy. I realised that whoever acquiesced in being ‘governed’ by such a government was either fast asleep, a coward or a traitor and those guilty of cowardice or treachery deserve only one fate.

I realised that what I had called ‘living my life’ wasn’t any sort of life at all, but merely the day to day desensitized grind of a brainwashed robot.

I realised that all the policies of the current regime were designed to destroy my race. That a race without its own culture would not remain a race for very long. That a race without its own nation and control over its own nation and that nation’s borders would not remain a race for very long. That a race that did not honour its true heroes would soon stop having children, that a race whose children who were taught to hate the race to which they belonged and who were encouraged to interbreed with other races, or encouraged to not have children but to have a career, would very soon become extinct. That a race that had lost not only the will to power, but the will to life, the will to live and the will to survive was a race whose days were numbered.

So I made a vow there and then, a vow that ‘they’ would not win.

Fighting back . . .

I escaped from them and went underground and discovered thousands like me in the resistance and joined the resistance groups and fought for the survival of White culture and the White race.

I fought for the freedom for my people to speak our minds; for the freedom to listen to all points of view; for the freedom to seek the truth.

I fought for our people to be free from harmful ideologies, alien ideologies and alien cultures, to be free from debt and interest slavery, to be free from crime and the fear of the knock at the door in the middle of the night, to be free from this alien liberal totalitarian tyranny that persecutes anyone who possesses a last vestige of common sense.

I fought for our people to be free to pursue our own culture, our own music, our own architecture our own art, free to pursue our own destiny. I fought for the right of our people to live among our own kind. I fought for our people to be what God intended us to be – white men and women in a white society at ease with itself and living in harmony with all the laws of God and Nature.

I fought for the freedom for our own people to pursue our own destiny as a people, and for the freedom to be ourselves.

We fought, and after much bloodshed, suffering and struggle, we won and we recovered our freedom.

Then . . .

Then, after the victory, it was time to deal with all those who needed to be dealt with.

When someone betrays his family or his community or his nation – he is a traitor.

When someone betrays his race – he is a liberal.

There are enemies, there are traitors and there are liberals.

Well, there are trees and we have rope.

We lined up all the traitors and liberals ready to be dealt with in the way that all traitors have always been dealt with.

The liberals and traitors, on their tip toes balancing upon rickety stools, nooses around their necks, pleading for their lives before us.

Then, before we kicked away the stools and sent them swinging on their way down to Hell, we asked them “Why on earth should we not execute you as the new law and as natural law demands? Why should we spare your miserable, worthless lives?”

What do you think they replied?

“Live and let live”.

And how did we reply?

The answer my readers is up to you.

Finis.

Jew, Part Two: Andy on a Bike

via Alternative Right

Andy continues his discourse on Jews, this time discussing double standards, ethnic skulduggery, and the proper and improper applications of racial pride, making mordant and relevant references to O.J. Simpson and Gaza, and distinguishing between untenable ethnomasochism and the noble and upstanding eschewal of petty tribalism, all the while astride his ten-speed bicycle, racing through his unsuspecting neighborhood utterly unaware of the hater in its midst.

White Zion, Part 2: Our Community

via The Legacy of Dr. William Pierce

Having to live around non-Whites -- having to work with them every day, being exposed to Jewish propaganda non-stop -- is not just intimidating and demoralizing in the sense of sapping hope and enthusiasm: it is spiritually debilitating. It can infect us with wrong values. It can distort our attitude toward our work, and it can undermine our adherence to our principles. And the longer we have to work in order to reach our goal, the more urgent this particular consideration becomes. For five years, or even ten years, any person with a little backbone can grit his teeth, shut out most of the poison, and keep his heart and his mind on his work. But what about working for 25 years, or 40 years, or a whole lifetime? How does one keep the flame of idealism burning with a pure light then? How does one pass that flame undimmed along to the next generation of strugglers? One does it only if somewhere there is a center of strength and purity which does not change, a center from which one can draw inspiration and guidance, because it is a center from which everything alien and unhealthy has been excluded.

Then there are the strictly practical considerations of having a place to ourselves, where we can do things that we will need to do in the future, in private; where we can have facilities that we'll need as our struggle progresses. And in the future we will also need a place where we can have the physical security and the economic self-sufficiency which it may not be possible to have in a metropolitan area like Washington.

In other words, we have needed a Zion, both psychologically and physically. And we'll need one even more in the future. And now we have one.

[Aside:] I wonder if I can have the lights out, and the slide projector on.

This is ours. Every tree and every blade of grass that you can see is ours. We own more than half a square mile of the most beautiful land on this continent.

[Applause]

The hills, the rocks, the meadows, and the forests there are all ours.

We've been able to acquire this land only because a few of us, a relative handful, have had the vision, the commitment to our goal, and the spirit of self-sacrifice which eventually everyone who remains a part of our community must have. And when every one of us has the spirit of self-sacrifice which a few have already displayed, then there will be nothing which we cannot accomplish.

I'll say it again: We have this land because of the sacrifices of a relative few. They're people who did not sit back and hold on tight to what they had, thinking that when the times comes that we are really making great strides forward, then they'll give us a little boost. No. These were people who have had the faith and the selflessness to put everything they had on the line for us now, when we're still almost nothing compared to what we will be one day. And some of the names of these great-hearted few cannot even be told until our goal has been reached, perhaps in another generation.

But I can tell you now that what we have achieved in the past few months will make an enormous difference to us -- more difference than most people can imagine. It's not just that the center of our operations will be where rioting Blacks or a Jewish arson squad cannot damage it. It's not just that we can now survive economic setbacks and breakdowns in law and order and continue doing our work without interruption. And it's not just that we can assemble a larger staff in a more pleasant location and keep them working on lower salaries than would be the case in Washington or any other city. More important than all of these considerations of security and economy and self-sufficiency and new facilities are the biological and spiritual considerations. We're adding an entirely new dimension to our work.

Until now, all of us have had to live 24 hours a day in a Jewish world, while trying to do a little bit now and then to make it possible to have a non-Jewish world at some time in the distant and indefinite future. But now we are actually beginning to build a little piece of that non-Jewish world. There will actually be a place which we may think of almost as a very small country, less than a square mile in size, where some of our people can begin living in accord with our values and our principles 24 hours a day, every day; where children can be raised in accord with those values and principles. We'll have a little country which is ours spiritually as well as physically.

And that has a double value to us, just like Zion has a double value to the Jews. One part of the value will be what we will be doing there on the land, biologically and spiritually as well as physically. The other part of the value will be the meaning -- the inspiration -- which that will have for the rest of us as we continue living in the Jewish world and going about our recruiting duties. I expect that what we do on the land, in our own little country, will result in an enormous flow of strength and enthusiasm outward to everyone off the land; of strength to overcome defeatism and despair; of strength to keep on working and keep on recruiting year after year. Because there will be a new light in the world that every member can see, no matter where he is; a new evidence that his work and his sacrifices are not in vain. There will be something tangible, something concrete, something alive and growing and permanent which his efforts are adding to: a community which he knows will not fold up and go away overnight, as right-wing organizations have a habit of doing. That will make a difference for us everywhere.

I know that whether I am physically on the land or off the land, my heart will be on the land. And I believe that will be true of many others also. This very month marks the beginning of a dual mode of existence for us.

On the one hand, we will be continuing to build the Alliance here in Washington, and in Chicago, and in Philadelphia, and in Montgomery, and in Johannesburg, and elsewhere through personal recruiting and the distribution of Alliance publications as we have in the past -- but more efficiently than in the past as we continue to learn how to be better recruiters and as we continue to upgrade the average quality of our membership, and we develop our organizational structure. That is our Diaspora.

At the same time, however, we'll be working on our land, on our mountain. So while the Diaspora is recruiting, the mountain will be building an actual community which will be moving, as it says on the logotype of National Vanguard, "Toward a New Consciousness; a New Order; a New People." An actual community.

Now I'll tell you where I believe all of this is heading. I wrote about community-building in the August [1984] issue of National Vanguard, but only very briefly about community action, about what our community would do relative to the rest of the world. I was brief because I don't like to speculate on uncertain things in National Vanguard, and anything which depends as much or more on what everyone else does as on what we do is indeed uncertain.

But what I think will happen is this: Along the road to the Mulatto world which the Jews, and of course the Mulattos and the Mestizos themselves, are working to bring about, we're going to run into some interesting developments, mostly in the form of reactions to the main thrust of history.

We're going to see, for instance, the growth of a White subculture in the United States. Just as, during the Middle Ages, there were some people with a natural immunity to the Black Death -- to the plague -- so there will emerge a segment of American society which is more or less immune to the Judaeo-Christian poison. That "more or less" qualification is important. I'm not saying that a ready-made batch of Alliance members will emerge. But there will be a lot of people generally alienated from the Jewish society.

People, for example, who will cling to their "redneck" heritage through country music with an overt racial message and who will reject the various Black, Mulatto, and Jewish country singers the Jews are already using in an effort to pre-empt such a development. There will be people who will emerge as a market for explicitly "racist" films and cable TV programs, or for explicitly "racist" printed materials ranging from comic books to genuine literature -- not necessarily literature with any message or films with a moral, but simply material which appeals to people who want to read about their Whiteness, or people who don't like Blacks and find pleasure in seeing them getting their lumps in a movie. There'll be certain towns, or certain suburbs, which will gain a reputation and which will manage to remain militantly White, sort of like Cicero, Illinois, for example, and which will manage to thwart government efforts to "integrate" them. There'll be certain vacation spots, certain leisure activities, and perhaps even certain clothing styles which will be associated with a spirit of militant Whiteness. And there will be a lot of non-militant Whites who will participate in one way or another in the trend.

I think this will emerge in a lot of different ways and at a lot of different levels. I think one will see it in certain labor unions. I think one will see certain elements in the Republican party participating in it, and some elements in various professions -- academics, lawyers, perhaps even an unofficial faction in the American Medical Association. One will see a lot of people engaged in activities that the Judaeo-Christians will denounce as "racist." But these people won't run like rabbits and begin apologizing for being White when they're denounced, as is nearly always the case today. They'll have heard it so many times, it just won't bother them -- or if it does, they'll counterattack with a denunciation of Zionist racism in Israel or of Black racism or of "Hispanic" racism.

Reactions of this sort are inevitable in any period of rapid and drastic social change. The toughest elements of the race, when they finally have their backs to the wall, will resist going down.

The Jews will be expecting this opposition. They've seen it happen a hundred times in other countries and in other ages. They regard such reactions as the natural death throes, a sort of wild flailing and thrashing about, of a civilization they have almost killed. And they will run around pouring water on the hot spots, but not greatly worrying about it. Their main concern will be to keep the various reactions from coalescing, from gaining any coherence, and -- more than anything else -- to keep them from having a purpose, an ideology, a unifying spiritual basis. And so they will be promoting a new Charlie Pride, a new Neil Diamond, to short-circuit the White music fans. They'll be writing and publishing anti-Black materials themselves, in an effort to capture that particular market and control it. They'll put forward "leaders" -- new Barry Goldwaters and new George Wallaces. And they'll be taking polls, having endless televised discussions about the phenomenon, trying to talk it to death, as well as trying to deal with it in the standard ways, using governmental coercion, economic pressure, and so on.

And the Jews will figure that if they can keep the reaction under control for twenty years or so, for a generation, it will lose its vitality and die out. And then there'll be nothing left to threaten them, nothing left to thwart their plan for a Mulatto future.

But the Jews, as so often in the past, will figure wrong. They're going to lose their grip on the reaction. It's going to get completely out of control. It's going to catch fire. Because we're going to be there, fanning the sparks and pouring on the fuel.

[Applause]

We're going to be taking advantage of the new markets for books and magazines and videotapes and music which will open up. We're going to be pouring our material into these markets. We're going to make our message available to all of those reactionaries, and some of them are going to listen to it. And those who do are going to provide a coherence to the whole thing. And the message will be coming from the mountain, from our island of White values in a Jewish ocean. And we're going to put some purpose and meaning into the lives of a lot of those people. And some of them will join our Diaspora, and strengthen it, and others will join us on the mountain, on our little island.

And the day will come when our little island becomes two islands, maybe a thousand miles apart; and then three; and then a whole archipelago. We're going to build a fire that they can't put out. The message is going to be coming from every island in our archipelago. We may not save this country or this civilization. But we'll save something. And then we'll start over. With White genes, White values, a White purpose. And we'll build a whole new world.

The really great thing about what has just happened is that we don't have to wait until after some violent revolution or some other cataclysm in the distant future to start rebuilding the world. We've already started.

Our mountain -- our island -- is the beginning of a new world. And it will be new in every way. Remember, we're not trying to escape from the present so that we can return to the past. Our aim is to establish a base in the present from which we can shape the future. We're not trying to make a simpler, more peaceful, or more rustic world to which we can retreat while everything else goes to Hell. It will be necessary for us to remain very much in touch with the rest of the world while it continues on its course. We're not going to imitate the Amish by shunning machinery. We're going to use every tool and every weapon available to us which will help us get the job done.

Our community on the mountain, on our little island, will be governed by the spiritual values that it is our mission to preserve. So it will be, essentially, a religious community. But it won't consist of a bunch of monks practicing their calligraphy with goose quills and parchment. It will be a religious community using the latest and most powerful data processing and word processing equipment which we can afford to purchase. In fact, we are looking at the specifications now for a powerful new computer which will be the basis for the whole system.

More than ever before, we'll need the special skills and resources of our members. We'll need talented, trained men and women who can provide special capabilities for us on the mountain, on our island. And we'll need financial support from others, so that we can continue acquiring needed equipment and continue moving forward with the development of our community. We'll need a lot of help, a lot of commitment, a lot of faith, a lot of sacrifice. But we have a good bunch of people; a bright and resourceful and idealistic bunch of people. And by pulling together and giving it everything that we've got, we'll win this fight yet. Thank you.