Sep 15, 2014

Identity and Difference, Part 1: Difference

via The Occidental Observer

Alain de Benoist

Difference

The debate about immigration has raised in a sharp manner the questions of the right to difference, the future of the mode of community life, of the diversity of human cultures and of social and political pluralism. Questions of such importance cannot be treated with brief slogans or prefabricated responses. “Let us, therefore, oppose exclusion and integration,” writes Alain Touraine. “The first is as absurd as it is scandalous, but the second has taken two forms that need to be distinguished and between them there must be searched for, at least, a complementarity. Speaking of integration only to tell the new arrivals that they have to take their position in society as such and what it was before their arrival, that is much closer to exclusion than of a true integration.”[1]

The communitarian tendency began to affirm itself in the early eighties, in liaison with certainly confusing ideological propositions about the notion of “multicultural society.” Later it seemed to be remitted due to critiques directed against it on behalf of liberal individualism and “republican” universalism: the relative abandonment of the theme of difference, considered as “dangerous,” the denunciation of communities, invariably presented as “ghettos” or “prisons,” the over-valuation of individual problems to the detriment of the groups, the return of a form of purely egalitarian anti-racism, etc. The logic of capitalism, which, to extend itself, needs to make organic social structures and traditional mentalities disappear, has also had weight in that sense. The leader of immigrant minorities, Harlem Désir, sometimes accused of having inclined towards “differentialism,”[2] has been able to boast of having “promoted the sharing of common values and not the identitarian tribalism, the republican integration around universal principles and not the construction of community lobbies.”[3]

All the critique of the mode of community life is reduced, in fact, to the belief that difference obstructs inter-human understanding and, therefore, integration. The logical conclusion of that approach is that integration will remain facilitated with the suppression of communities and the erosion of differences. This deduction is based on two assumptions:
  • (1) The more “equal” are the individuals who compose a society, the more they will “resemble” each other and the less problematic their integration will be;
  • (2) Xenophobia and racism are the result of the fear of the Other. Consequently, to make otherness disappear or to persuade each one that the Other is a small thing if compared with the Same, it will result in its attenuation and even its nullification.
Both assumptions are erroneous. Without doubt, in the past racism has been able to function as an ideology that legitimized a complex — colonial, for example — of domination and of exploitation. But in modern societies, racism appears rather as a pathological product of the egalitarian ideal; that is to say, as a door of obliged departure (“the only way to distinguish oneself”) in the bosom of a society that, adhering to egalitarian ideas, perceives all difference as unbearable or as abnormal: “The anti-racist discourse,” writes Jean-Pierre Dupuy in this respect, “considers as an evidence that the racist depreciation made of the other goes on par with a social organization that prioritizes beings based on the function of a criterion of value. … [But] these presuppositions are exactly contrary to what we learn from the comparative study of human societies and of their history. The most favorable medium for mutual recognition is not the one which obeys the principle of equality, but rather that the one which obeys the principle of hierarchy. This thesis, which the works of Louis Dumont have illustrated in multiple ways, can only be comprehended with the precondition of not confusing hierarchy with inequality, but rather, on the contrary, by opposing both concepts. … In a true hierarchical society, the hierarchically superior element does not dominate the inferior elements, but is different from them in the same sense in which all the parties are encompassed, or in the sense in which one party takes precedence over another in the constitution and in the internal coherence of the whole.”[4]

Jean-Pierre Dupuy also notes that xenophobia is not defined solely by fear of the Other, but, perhaps even more, by fear of the Same: “What people are afraid of is the indifferentiation, and this because indifferentiation is always the sign and product of social disintegration. Why? Because the unity of the whole presupposes its differentiation, that is to say, its hierarchical conformation. Equality, that principle that denies differences, is the cause of mutual fear. People are afraid of the Same, and there is the source of racism.”[5]

The fear of the Same raises mimetic rivalries without end, and egalitarianism is, in modern societies, the motor of those rivalries in which each seeks to become “more equal” than the others. But, at the same time, the fear of the Other is added to the fear of the Same, producing a game of mirrors which prolongs itself to infinity. Thus, it can be said that the xenophobic ones are just as allergic to the other identity of the immigrants (real or imagined otherness) as, conversely, to how much in these is not different, and that xenophobia is experienced as a potential threat of indifferentiation. In other words, the immigrant is considered a threat at the same time as an assimilable person and as a non-assimilable person. The Other is thus converted into a danger to the extent that it is a carrier of the Same, while the Same is a danger to the extent that it pushes the recognition of the Other. And this game of mirrors works all the more as how much atomized the society is, composed of increasingly isolated individuals and, therefore, increasingly vulnerable to all conditions.

Thus one can better understand the failure of an “anti-racism” that, in the best of cases, does not accept the Other more than to reduce it to the Same. As much as it erodes the differences with the hope of facilitating integration, the more it in reality makes it impossible. The more it thinks to battle against exclusion by desiring to make immigrants uprooted individuals “like everyone else,” the more it contributes to the advent of a society where mimetic rivalry culminates in exclusion and generalized dehumanization. And finally, the more the “anti-racism” is believed in, the more it appears like a racism classically defined as the negation or radical devaluation of group identity, a racism that has always opposed the preeminence of a single obligatory norm, judged explicitly or implicitly as “superior” (and superior because it is “universal”) over the differentiated modes of life, whose mere existence seems incongruous or detestable.

This anti-racism, universalist and egalitarian (“individuo-universalist”), extends the secular trend that, under the most diverse forms and in the name of the most contradictory imperatives (the propagation of the “true faith,” the “superiority” of the White race, the global exportation of the myths of “progress” and “development”), has not stopped practicing the conversion seeking to reduce diversity everywhere, that is to say, precisely, trying to reduce the Other to the Same. “In the West,” observes the ethno-psychiatrist Tobie Nathan, “the Other no longer exists in our cultural schemas. Now we only consider the relation with the Other from the moral point of view, meaning, not only in an inefficient way, but also without procuring ourselves the means to understand it. The condition of our education system is that we are to think that the whole world is alike [...]. To say ‘I must respect the other’ is something that makes no sense. In the everyday relation, this kind of phrase has no sense if we cannot integrate our schemes to the fact that naturally, the function of the Other is precisely to be Other. [...] France is the most insane country for that. [...] The structure of power in France seems unable to integrate even those small fluctuations which are the regional languages​​. But it is exactly from this conception of power from which humanistic theory was constructed, up to the universal Declaration of human rights.” And Nathan concludes: “Immigration is the real problem at the foundation of our society, which does not know to think of difference.”[6]

It is time, then, to recognize the Other and to remember that the right to difference is the principle that, as such, is only worth its generality (nobody can defend their difference except to the extent that they recognize, respect, and defend also the difference of the other) and whose place is in the broader context of the right of the peoples and of ethnic groups: The right to identity and to collective existence, the right to language, to culture, to territory and self-determination, the right to live and to work in their own country, the right to natural resources and to the protection of the market, etc.

The positive attitude will be, to reference the terms of Roland Breton,
that which, starting with the recognition of the right to difference, admits pluralism as a fact which is not only ancient, durable, and permanent, but also positive, fertile, and desirable. The attitude that resolutely turns its back to the totalitarian projects of the uniformization of humanity and of society, and which does not see in the different or deviant individual one who must be punished, nor as a sick one who must be cured, nor as an abnormal one who must be helped, but rather another self, simply provided with a set of physical traits or cultural habits, generators of sensibility, of tastes, and of aspirations of their own. On a planetary scale, it is tantamount to admitting, after the consolidation of certain sovereign hegemonies, the multiplication of independencies, but also of interdependencies. On the regional scale, it is tantamount to recognizing, against centralisms, the processes of autonomy, of self-centered organization, of self-management. … The right to difference supposes the mutual respect of the groups and of the communities, and the exaltation of the values of each one. … To say ‘long live the difference’ does not imply any idea of superiority, of domination and of contempt: the affirmation of oneself is not the lowering of the other. The recognition of the identity of an ethnicity can only subtract from others what they have unduly monopolized.[7]
The affirmation of the right to be different is the only way to escape a double error: that error, very widespread in the Left, that consists of believing that “human brotherhood” will be realized on the ruins of differences, the erosion of cultures, and the homogenization of communities, and that other error, widespread in the Right, which consists of the belief that the “rebirth of the nation” will be achieved by inculcating in its members an attitude of rejection towards others. 
______________________________________________________________________

[1] “Vraie et fausse intégration,” Le Monde, 29 January 1992.
[2] “La timidité en paie jamais,” Le Nouvel Observateur, 26 March 1992, p.15.
[3] About the critique of “differentialist neo-racism,” based on the idea that “the racist argumentation has shifted from race to culture,” cf. especially Pierre-André Taguieff, La force du préjugé. Essai sur le racisme et ses doubles, Découverte, Paris, 1988, and Gallimard, París, 1990. Taguieff’s critique rests, in our judgement, on a double fallacy. On the one hand, it forgets that the right to difference, when it lays itself down as a principle, it necessarily leads to also defending the difference of others, so that it could never legimitize the unconditional affirmation of an absolute singularity (there is no difference but in relation with that one to which it is deferred). On the other hand, it ignores the fact that cultural differences and racial differences are not of the same order, so that way they cannot be instrumentalized by the same one: that would amount, paradoxically, to the assertion that nature and culture are equivalent. For a discussion on this issue, cf. Alain de Benoist, André Béjin and Pierre-André Taguieff, Razzismo e antirazzismo, La Roccia di Erec, Florencia, 1992 (partial translation of André Béjin, Julien Freund, Michael Pollak, Alain Daniélou, Michel Maffesoli et al., Racismes, antiracismes, Méridiens-Klincksieck, 1986).
[4] “La science? Un piège pour les antirracistes!,” Le Nouvel Observateur, 26 March 1992, p.20.
[5] Ibid., p.21.
[6] L’Autre Journal, October 1992, p.41.
[7] Les Ethnies, 2nd ed., PUF, París, 1992, pp.114-115.


Son of Stepford Wives

via MajorityRights.com

“I like to watch” is the key phrase to this ostensibly ludicrous cult sci-fi thriller from 1975, with Katherine Ross as the hippy-ish heroine.

Her sidekick, Paula Prentiss, is the perfect foil, apparently channelling a braless Katherine Hepburn. Stepford, as I guess most of you know, is the eternal TV commercial, run by men for men (show me a female commercial director).


The men study and subject the women to various tests, to further their aim of producing perfect flesh for perfect studs. Such unsettling sleaze apparently scared off several actresses and, seen in hindsight, I think you should see a comparison to H+? This is ’75, so you have to fast-forward the technology. Sleaze on such a colossal scale occurs when we are missing the world of praxis, which is sensual and romantic, and of which techne is just a part, not the whole caboodle.

Stepford is not licentiousness; everything is disguised in a superficial, repetitive round of stylised women performing services, ie, shopping. Again, you could flash-forward to contemporary pop-stars who are walking products (Rita Ora makes money just by stepping-out). In order to perceive the sinister role techne is playing in such degradation, I went back to ’02, just about the time mobiles were starting to take root.

A mobile is something which is always changing, and there is something sinister in as product that monopolises social-intercourse, while metamorphosing endlessly towards the oft-stated perfection of seamless interfacing. Man and machine as one. None have captured this unstoppable techne trend better than Avril Lavigne.

At the time seen as the “anti-Britney”, in actual fact we now have multiple-Britneys in the shapes of Ri, Cyrus, Perry.. How is it that the pop-punk rebel of formidable talent was not able to persevere? I did a bit of research, and it seems the prevailing view is “more of the same”. In a world of accelerating social-techne, nothing you do can stop the change. Nothing you do can stop the techne co-opting female flesh to its nefarious aim of nicely kitted-out products that sing & dance (online for your satisfaction). Next stop cyborg-city.

You think I jest? Here is a good joke, actually. In ’03 Lavigne perfectly prefigured the era of Miley Cyrus, here in her suggestive loin gyrations she is giving a brilliant parody. Lavigne was/is the intuitive-intellectual, her French (Canadian) indifference is/was indicative of exceptional confidence. Telling it like it is, but I guess few are listening.

Add to this the fact that the music is real, hummable Nirvana-ish anthems, in contrast to the genre-medley of current vogue, lyrically mouthy, completely contrary to prevailing trends. If you check this video for current track Hello Kitty, seems like quite a typical parody, but of course tweets were “racism” (zzz). Why even bother? Where the cyber-public can’t discern the relevance of racial mannerisms and bleat racism like dead parrots, they’re also incapable of discerning relevance of parody. Also, is the parody of ritualistic traditions, or the cute cyborgs that inhabit Japanese pop-culture? How can you tell?

Such mental dysfunction is half-way toward the apparent aim of a textual cyber-future, where the public utter robotic bleats with no connections to a physical world of what you might call theatricality. The Japanese troupe in the video is performing a sort of ritualistic mime, as identifiable with Japanese tradition as The Mikado. This is just one facet of an animalistic world of motifs and emblematic imagery. Think only of heraldic devices, coats of arms, images intuitive of mythic or racial origin, specifying a world connected with subconscious drives.

Race, flora, fauna, symbols ... all are signs of connection with Mother Earth. You can actually see it in the stage designs for The Cunning Vixen (previous). The “connected world” of social-nets is possibly a bridge to the aim of H+, where the body is an adjunct to a colossal Cartesian multiverse of social-text. If this is the aim, or an implicit one at least, then Lavigne’s song will have become literal fact. With everything mobile, stasis – symbolised by the eternal yew tree - has no traction.

Stasis is the inner world of fantasy and subconscious imagination, so one has to say that, however well-intentioned the aims of the cyber-knights, they are doomed to failure against such an impregnable bulwark. The relation between the Right and stasis is probably worth pursuing.

Ashkenazi Ancestry Revisited

via West Hunter

Shai Carmi has his article out on Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.  A few comments:

First, looks like a good job, on the whole. Perhaps Carmi had special training . . .

Second, about dates: they assume a mutation rate of 1.44 x 10-8 per generation, and a generation length of 25 years. I think both of those are a little off.  All the directly-measured whole-genome rates are between 0.96×10−8 and 1.20×10−8: I wouldn’t go higher than 1.20 x 10-8 per generation, with what I know now.  In the course of looking at paternal age effects, I also checked out the known data on average generation lengths. In no known population is it as short as 25 years: never less than 28 for females, and almost always longer than 28 for males, usually in the 30s.  30 is a much more reasonable generation length than 25.

The date estimates are inversely related to the assumed mutation rate and directly proportional to the generation length.

In the article, they estimate an Ashkenazi bottleneck with an effective size of 250-420, 25-32 generations ago. With a mutation rate of 1.2 x 10-8 per generation, that changes to an effective size of 300-500 (not much different) 30-38.4 generations ago.

By their numbers, we’re talking 625-800 years ago.  Adjusted, 900-1150. Since we know for sure that at least some Ashkenazi Jews were in the Rhineland before the year 1000, I think that the revised estimate indicates that the original settlement was the bottleneck, which makes sense.

Third, about comparison populations: they used Flemings as a sample European population, and estimated the Ashkenazi Jews are 46-50% European. Why Flemings?  All the previous analyses have suggested that their European component is from southern Europe.  The mtDNA analysis is pretty specific: Italy and France.   I think you’d get a better estimate using Italians, and it would probably yield a slightly higher estimate of European admixture.

'I Am An American'

via Radix Journal

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks of 2001, the non-profit Ad Council put out the famous public service announcement "I Am an American."

Featuring pretty much every possible ethnic group on this continent, all join in declaring that they are, in fact, an American.

This ad thoroughly disgusted me when it came out and made me question what being an American actually means. American in my mind still stood for being a normal White person who can speak English. Little did I know it just means living here. I thought America was actually a country, not a great Lockean shopping mall.


But this commercial truly shows that this country no longer has an actual culture or people--it is simply one big strip mall where any person can be a part of. 9/11 spawned more "Diversity is our strength" rhetoric than any other could possibly conjure up. It was of course a sham, and our diversity led us back to our atomized society shortly after the dust settled and people went back to shopping. 

The other "Diversity is Strength" moment I remember from the time period besides this ad was an episode of the MTV reality show The Real World where cast members took a break from arguing about who's fucking who to memorialize 9/11. The Real World was a show that celebrated throwing together diverse individuals into one house and letting the sparks fly. The show was driven by constant tension between cast members--rarely giving the impression that diversity led to any type of meaningful cohesion. After the 9/11 episode, the cast members quickly went back to being drama queens and bickering over each other’s sex lives--showcasing how America quickly reverted to its old, divided self after the rubble was cleared.

While the updated ad claims we are still "one" 10 years later, that couldn't be further from the truth. E pluribus unum I think not. Without a real people and culture to go with America, we don't count as a real nation. When a whole host of people with absolutely nothing in common can say they are an American, that means being American doesn't extend beyond a piece of paper.

#NeverForget we don't live in a real country.

But maybe one day we can say we do.

Border Chaos: A Ploy to Reboot North American Union?

via American Freedom Party

The author of a book that is credited with revealing to the public a clandestine campaign for a “North American Union” suggests the current border crisis – in which tens or even hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are simply moving into America – is a steppingstone to the original NAU plan.

“We stopped the [Security and Prosperity Partnership] simply by exposing the plan to create a North American Union,” said Jerome Corsi (pictured), author of “The Late Great U.S.A.: The Coming Merger With Mexico and Canada.”

The book tackled the issue of the governments of the U.S., Mexico and Canada meeting to coordinate activities and actions, regulations and more, but those overt efforts have diminished since the controversy erupted.

“Now the timetable for continental integration has slowed down,” Corsi said. “The decision seems to have been made to accomplish first the integration of the United States and Mexico by leaving the southern border open to an unstopped flood of Hispanics crossing the border illegally.”

Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI) suggested that the United States should consider repealing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to punish Mexico for “dishonorably” being “complicit” in allowing illegal immigrant children to come to America…

We [America] are not an ATM machine.


Regardless of why illegal aliens enter the U.S. from Latin America, the fact remains that their presence in large numbers could make it much easier to integrate the U.S. with Mexico, Corsi argues.

And once integration happens, it would become even easier for Mexicans to migrate to the United States, with illegal immigration and an open borders concept . So illegal immigration and a North American Union would reinforce each other.

He said in an age of mass immigration and a “global economy,” a national sovereignty is hard to continue.

Get your copy of “The Late Great U.S.A.: The Coming Merger With Mexico and Canada,” and be forewarned about the strategy.

“The pressures for the United States not to be a sovereign nation in a 20- or 50-year period of time are almost overwhelming,” he said.

He doesn’t, however, expect public plans for any “union” plan to be discussed any time soon.

“With the open borders and the invasion going on from Central America, I think Americans are again seeing that the SPP plans are still in place, just today in a stealth methodology,” he said.

The official Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which some called a prelude to the NAU, has been officially inactive since 2009.

But Corsi said the globalists have not stopped, “and the globalists will never stop.”

Corsi’s “The Late Great U.S.A.: The Coming Merger With Mexico and Canada,” was written two years after President George W. Bush teamed up with Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin to announce the creation of the SPP.

It was amidst the backlash after the book publicized the plans that the SPP eventually was shuttered.

“As people began seeing the components of the North American Union that were coming into place, went to the SPP.gov website and read it for themselves,” Corsi said, “it produced very much of a negative reaction. People said, ‘No.’ They didn’t want a North American Union; they wanted to preserve U.S. sovereignty, and they wanted to secure the border.”

It went quiet.

“What happened was the globalist integration of North America took a different direction. Basically, it went underground,” he said.

But Corsi claimed the infrastructure continues to be put in place for a unified North America.

He said Canada is quietly opening its oil supply to China, as well as building a transcontinental highway and rail system with ports on both coasts to open itself to world trade. Pipelines in Canada are planned to transport Canadian oil to Canadian ports on the Pacific Ocean for transport to China.

Mexico, he said, continues to build ports, roads, and railroads, preparing for a renewed flow of containers from China to be transported into the heart of the United States where Kansas remains ready to host a Mexican Customs office, should a global economic recovery restore international trade to the U.S. from China to reach pre-2010 levels once again.

“You don’t have the same big-fanfare summit meetings,” Corsi said. “President Obama is still meeting with Mexico and Canada. The meetings occur on an annual basis. But now they have been renamed, downgraded to the status of North American Leaders’ Summit meetings. Gone is the designation of these conferences as Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America meetings. Gone are the dozen or more ‘tripartite working groups’ the U.S., Mexico, and Canada had constituted under the SPP to knit together a bureaucratic structure of continental rules and regulations.”

Still, Corsi maintains, under the rubric of the North American Leaders’ Summit meetings the globalists continue their efforts to erase the borders separating the United States from Canada and Mexico.

In his book, Corsi predicted an NAU could be in place by 2010, and he believes that would have happened without the backlash created by the book.

In 2011, President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced two new initiatives – one to better align the two countries’ regulations, and the other to strengthen their shared security and ease the flow of people and products across their border.

However, Mexico was not part of these initiatives.

“With the demise of the SPP, globalists have decided that we will evolve into a North American Union … with integration achieved simply by allowing people to walk across the border with Mexico or to swim across the border,” he said.

Snuffing Out South African Identity

via American Renaissance

Dan Roodt, Raiders of the Lost Empire: South Africa’s ‘English’ Identity, praag.org, 2014.

Available on the author’s website (Epub and Kindle) for $3.00 or at Amazon.com (Kindle) for $4.99.

It may surprise American readers to know that for most of South Africa’s history, the “race problem” referred to friction between the British and the Dutch/Afrikaners. AR contributor and conference speaker Dan Roodt’s new book describes how that older conflict paved the way for black rule, and how it now contributes to the campaign against the one authentic white identity in South Africa: that of the Afrikaners. Dr. Roodt, himself an Afrikaner, paints a haunting picture of a genuine white nation, with no home but Africa, under assault not only from blacks but from the entire English-speaking world.

Dan Roodt
Dan Roodt
The first Dutch emigrants settled near the Cape of Good Hope in 1652, and today’s Afrikaners are descended from about 40,000 Dutchmen, Germans and Frenchmen who were already established in South Africa by the 18th Century. By the time the British arrived in the 19th century, the earlier settlers had blended to form a nation with a unified consciousness and a language of their own that was already different from Dutch. To this day, for the majority of whites in South Africa, Afrikaans is the language of the heart, of memory, of the countryside, of their ancestors. Afrikaans was the operating language of the old South African Defense Forces, which associated the language with loyalty and sacrifice.

As Dr. Roodt explains, the English sent to colonize the Eastern Cape never became a nation:
Unaccustomed to the hardships of life in Africa, and subject to Xhosa aggression, many of these settlers either died or actually went back to Britain. Unlike in the USA, where a local identity did take root, while still expressed in English, South African English identity has remained amorphous and fleeting.
Today, of the 4.2 million or so whites in South Africa, about 60 percent (2.5 million) speak Afrikaans as their first language, while something under 40 percent (1.6 million) speak English. Dr. Roodt notes that of the latter number, many are:
anglicised Portuguese, Greeks and assimilated Afrikaners, not to forget about the Lithuanian Jews, so that there must be only a million or so ‘real English’ in South Africa. Being everybody’s second or third language, no one in South Africa speaks or writes English very well either. South African English is considerably creolised and ugly . . . sometimes mimicking black speech.
The 3.9 million black English-speakers greatly outnumber white English-speakers, and give the language a strongly African flavor. South African universities have made matters worse by eliminating the study of classic English literature in favor of recent “Black and African literature in English.”

Even many of the one million “real English” are recent arrivals with shallow roots in South Africa:
Many Britons fled Harold Wilson’s socialist Britain [in the 1960s]. Up to 500,000 of these economic refugees immigrated to South Africa . . . . Most of them were politically conservative, but the booming South African economy allowed their children to fully participate in the decadent Anglo-American hippie culture of the 1960s and 1970s. Many of them also went to our English universities where they were re-educated into the various strands of Marxism then en vogue, as well as Boerehaat [hatred of Boer-Afrikaners]. The English language bound the younger generation to the radical ideas emanating from the USA and the UK, despite the conservative notions of their parents. Some of them even became terrorists. They participated in protests and clamoured to be freed from the Afrikaner government that treated them more fairly than any English government has ever treated us, including having their own schools and their own universities in their own language where they were virtually free to do and say what they wanted, including calling for the overthrow of the government.
It was this generation of English-speaking South African leftists who worked from within to overthrow white rule and demonize Afrikaners, but they had important allies: 1) the Brits back home; 2) the Litvaks, or Lithuanian Jews; and 3) the “Afro-Saxons,” a term Dr. Roodt uses to describe anglophile Blacks.

England was an important center of the international anti-apartheid movement:
In the 1970s and 1980s, Britain harboured the terrorists who blew up our restaurants or who placed car bombs in our streets. Much of the terrorism perpetrated . . . by the ANC and the SACP was conceived and planned in London. Some individuals from England have told me to my face that we Afrikaners deserve to be tortured to death by blacks and our women to be raped, for having oppressed blacks in the past.
Many of our forebears had fought on the Allied side during the two world wars and in Korea, but we were simply thrown to the dogs! That includes patriotic English South Africans and Rhodesians. Britain’s betrayal of Ian Smith, an RAF pilot during the second world war, and its installation of a radical Africanist and Marxist-Leninist, Robert Mugabe, to rule that formerly successful state, shows us what madness Englishmen are capable of.
Many of the English in South Africa still do not understand what was done to Rhodesia:
I remember at university here in Johannesburg when the news was announced over the radio that the radical Mugabe had won, how all the English students raucously applauded, just [as] they are still lauding his ‘land reform’ and ethnic cleansing of white farmers.
As for the Litvaks, “eighty percent of South African Jews came from Lithuania, mostly in the 1890s right after gold was discovered.” Many of the most famous white anti-apartheid figures descend from this group, including Helen Suzman, novelist Nadine Gordiner, and Communist Party boss Joe Slovo. Dr. Roodt believes that Jews did not feel at home under Afrikaner rule–despite the close cooperation between Israel and the apartheid regime–and helping overthrow the government was a way to resolve their own identity crisis. Many, of course, found that the black government they got is not the black government they wished for.

And radical though they may have been, this Jewish group nurtured a surprising and paradoxical devotion to the British monarchy, and were bitterly disappointed when South Africa became a republic after Afrikaners passed a referendum in 1960 over strong opposition from Litvaks and English-speakers.

Dr. Roodt recalls that:
What ultimately pushed so many Johannesburg Jews such as Joe Slovo, Ronnie Kasrils and the accused of the Rivonia Trial [at which Nelson Mandela was convicted] into espousing terrorism and an intense hatred of Afrikaners, was not so much racial segregation to which few whites, including leftists, objected, but the loss of the British monarchy. Years ago, when I had my first date as a student with a Jewish girl in Houghton, Johannesburg, I half expected her mother to look askance at me for being a goy, but the first thing she told me in a vaguely accusatory manner was how much she loved the British monarchy, seeing in me a representative of the people that took it away from her!
Dr. Roodt believes that repudiating the British crown was also a great stimulus to the radical black movement, and was a far more powerful motivation even than Marxism, which, outside the four English universities and a few fringe publications, had little influence. He believes it was the proclamation of the republic in 1961 that led Joe Slovo, as well as Nelson Mandela, to embrace the urban terrorism that was known as “armed struggle.”

Winnie and Nelson Mandela with Joe Slovo
Winnie and Nelson Mandela with Joe Slovo

As for black Anglophilia, Dr. Roodt thinks that by 1970, and especially after the Soweto riots, blacks were convinced that the larger English-speaking world backed them and opposed the apartheid government. The Carter administration probably played an important role in this, but the British influence was paramount in convincing blacks that English was the language of liberation. Even today:
[T]hose revolutionary blacks who fulminate against ‘colonialism and capitalist exploitation’ are the first to adopt the outward trappings of what they imagine a British gentleman to be. They play golf and drive expensive cars. They also drink whisky, of the expensive ‘single malt’ kind, in copious amounts. Julius Malema, the radical black nationalist, is himself something of an Englishman, being a connoisseur of whisky and expensive cars. He dresses like a British soccer player, with flashy watches and brightly coloured polo shirts.
Even Nelson Mandela explains in his autobiography that:
The educated Englishman was our model; what we aspired to be were ‘black Englishmen,’ as we were sometimes derisively called. We were taught–and believed–that the best ideas were English ideas, the best government was English government, and the best men were Englishmen.
Of course, whatever opposition others mounted against the regime, Afrikaners were ultimately betrayed by their own leaders, who foolishly adopted the Anglo-American view of blacks. Dr. Roodt believes that 1961 to 1983 were the “golden years” of white solidarity, after which Swedish funding for radical black groups and the international campaign of vilification began to break the Afrikaner will. In his capitulation to black rule, F. W. de Klerk and his circle completely repudiated what Afrikaners–both experts and ordinary people–had thought and written about the racial problem for over a hundred years.

F.W. de Klerk and Nelson Mandela
F.W. de Klerk and Nelson Mandela

The black rule that has followed has been a great victory of English-speakers over Afrikaners. Dr. Roodt even goes so far as to write that today, English-speaking leftists are:
the most powerful tribe in South Africa . . . bred in the claustrophobic confines of the anglophone universities, nourished on their petty hatred and chauvinism against Afrikaners, and [now] distributed throughout the system, in the universities, naturally, but also in the media, the state and even the banks and big business. They are ‘the white hand in the black glove.’ Behind every black figurehead there is always some white handler or speechwriter who lays down policy or manages communication to the outside world.
And yet, this English elite feels only a contingent attachment to South Africa:
According to De Kock, [Leon de Kock, an anglicised Afrikaner and self-styled "critic"] local English authors are nowadays seeing themselves as sovereign individuals who no longer belong to any country but might as well write stories set in Seattle or Manchester, to appeal to a wider audience. Being born and raised in South Africa is an accident of history that they might as well do without.
Dr. Roodt writes that this combination of rootless Anglophilia and the poverty of African tradition means that to a remarkable degree, South Africa’s identity is now based on imitation:
South Africa, especially these days, is trying to decide whether we should emulate Idi Amin’s Uganda or some cargo cult on the island of Vanuatu. You could call the system here a ‘cargo-cult democracy’ and as long as we spend about a billion dollars or so every five years on an election, in between elections it’s anything goes. Anarchy, or close to it.
However, elections serve only to give the imprimatur of ‘democracy’ to a system in which power changes hands elsewhere: in the ruling party’s headquarters or in dark deals cut with whomever benefits from the system financially.
Speaking of Vanuatu, I first became aware of the existence of this island in the early nineties when I noticed the remarkable resemblance between ‘our’ flag and that of Vanuatu. If there were such a thing as plagiarism in flags, South Africa would be guilty of it. Yet, South Africanness, at least after the decline of Afrikaner influence, is proudly imitatory. The closer one gets in passing oneself off as British, the more ‘South African’ one becomes. Plagiarism at university, at both under- and postgraduate level, is absolutely rife as students ‘copy and paste’ the words and thoughts of others in order to obtain one of our increasingly worthless degrees.
In other societies a lack of authenticity, or ersatz, showing no originality, or being a copy of something else, a simulacrum, is frowned upon. Not so in South Africa. It is part of ‘our’ colonial heritage.
In this context, English speakers object to Afrikaner identity because it is authentic:
  1. Afrikaners have roots in South Africa.
  2. Afrikaners have a national identity, which from both an imperial and Marxist point of view is undesirable, even ‘fascist.’
  3. Afrikaans culture, both the earthy, rural culture of braaivleis [barbecued meat] and walking around in shorts and velskoene [leather shoes], and the high culture of literature, classical music and European-style intellectualism is authentic and not ersatz.
  4. To some extent Afrikaners are endogamous, preferring their own kind, which blasphemes against the Anglo-American ideal of multiculturalism.
Beneath all this, writes Dr. Roodt, is envy. The English-speakers have nothing like the Voortrekker Monument; their heritage contains nothing like the Battle of Blood River. Until recently, 90 percent of the monuments in South Africa had been erected by Afrikaners. The history of the land was the history of their people, and at some level, all non-Afrikaners know they have been mere spectators. Afrikaners have their own pop music, their own romance and detective novels set locally, their own movies, their own cuisine, their own folk dances and folk music; English-speakers have none of this.

Envy can be ugly. As Dr. Roodt notes, “Some years ago, would-be British movie critic and man-about-town, Barry Ronge, said that the Voortrekker Monument should be painted pink and turned into a gay disco.” Dr. Roodt writes that often it is only after they have fled the “new” South Africa they helped create that English-speakers look back with longing on the Boer culture they left behind.

For those committed to the “new” South Africa, the most obvious way to attack Afrikaners is to attack their language. When the Anglo-Litvak-Afro-Saxon elite took over South Africa in 1994, they gave South Africa eleven official languages, which amounts to no official language. In practice, English is exclusively promoted as the national language:
The ANC-SACP government, egged on by Anglo-Saxon imperialists within the system, has imposed English on all education in South Africa, especially the five Afrikaans universities, [which] were summarily merged with English-language institutions. All or most of the state’s resources are being used to promote English, in a bid to kill off Afrikaans completely. . . . The treatment of Afrikaans after 1994 flies in the face of all UN Covenants and treaties, as well as international norms, such as UNESCO’s Universal Declaration of Language Rights.
English is said to represent the future, progress, broad-mindedness, openness to the world and . . . money-making. “In post-revolutionary, anglicised South Africa,” writes Dr. Roodt, “we have been told ad nauseam that clinging to one’s own language or culture, one’s own cuisine or music or traditional dress, is utterly primitive and should be abandoned forthwith.”

Some English-speaking blacks even take this view of African tribal customs, and want blacks to become westernized, politically correct feminists. Zulus, who policed other blacks under apartheid and fought the ANC, are targets, but of course it is the Afrikaners who bear the brunt of this sort of hectoring. It is often said that Afrikaner devotion to a language unknown outside South Africa is not economically rational, and to those who think exclusively in economic terms, this is incomprehensible. But then, loyalty and sacrifice are incomprehensible to such people.

Some Afrikaners are at least outwardly turning their backs on their heritage. At universities and in the media, some change their names and pretend not to speak Afrikaans in order to keep their jobs. And at least a few have internalized their enemies’ views: Afrikaner novelist André Brink has gone so far as to proclaim that “my people do not deserve to exist and should disappear.”

Dr. Roodt is not hostile to the English language; he has an extensive knowledge of English literature which would put many native speakers to shame. What he opposes is English as a “killer language”–a term recently coined for “a language so dominant that it tends to wipe out all others.” Language is an important ingredient of identity for black and white South Africans alike, and Dr. Roodt believes that “killer English” is partly to blame for the:
lack of identity [which] drives the need for drugs, for drink, prostitution, gambling and the vast spectrum of vices consuming South Africa, at once the most decadent and the most criminal of countries in the world. The corollary of deracinated English is that there is a constant process of identity-seeking and whether one finds one’s identity in drugs, golf, adopting a ‘posh’ British accent, or radical politics, is a matter of choice or chance.
A weak sense of identity is usually destructive. Afrikaners, who often lived close to blacks and learned their languages, understood this, while “the Englishman has kept himself aloof, residing in all-white suburbs fulminating about ‘racism’.” Many years ago, Afrikaners were writing that “simply uprooting black Africans from their traditional culture and subjecting them to a superficial ‘Westernisation’ and anglicisation would lead to identity loss and ethnopsychological destabilisation [which] would in turn unleash intense violence and social decay.” Dr. Roodt quotes a warning written by Afrikaner anthropologist J. P. Bruwer in 1961:
No people, no community, no pattern of life, may maintain values unless they are supported by a system of conservative ideas, a positive attitude to life that is rooted in a lived culture. Precisely herein lies the danger of a destabilised people, a destabilised community and a destabilised cultural tradition. A people or peoples that have been deracinated and torn away from the substance of their civilisation must become bearers of ‘other value systems’ that will ultimately overwhelm the existing society in which they are essentially aliens.
The South Africans who are most deracinated, both in terms of race and language, are South Africa’s mixed-race population:
The population group in South Africa with the most social problems regarding crime, substance abuse, a high drop-out rate and lack of tertiary education, are the so-called Coloureds of the Western and Northern Cape. Forty percent of children among Northern Cape Coloureds suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome. In the Western Cape especially, Coloureds speak a shifting English-Afrikaans Creole, a tragicomic tongue expressing the travails of a hybrid people. Hybridity, which is so celebrated by left-liberals the world over, seems to lead to a tragic, dysfunctional society of violence, drug and alcohol abuse.
Needless to say, the new elite encourages the production of as many of these unfortunate people as possible:
Within the hurricane of platitudes and PC clichés spat out on a daily basis by the inane South African media, the notion of race-mixing is always held up as the ultimate ideal. Almost every billboard has some racially mixed couple or crowd [engaged in] a ritual of consumption.
As Nadine Gordimer declared, “White and Black must make Colored,” though she herself married fellow Litvak Jews–twice.

The Afrikaner people are clearly under attack from all sides: from blacks who resent them, from English-speakers who envy and despise them, and from the larger white world that will never forgive them for taking the measures they found necessary to build a European society in Africa. Their stark numerical disadvantage–they are perhaps 5 percent of South Africa’s population–means the stakes are higher and the crisis sharper for them than for other European peoples. But they are a heroic people, and if they rally to spokesmen like Dan Roodt, they will surely have a future.





Endgame

via Whitaker Online

As I have written a mere hundred times or so, every blogger tells you where things are going right now, and that is critical FOR BLOGGERS. But as a guide to anything BIG that is GOING to happen, it ain’t worth doggy poop.

I remember hundreds of newspaper headlines that everybody was talking about for weeks. Then I remember mentioning them a month later and getting that totally mystified look everyone who remembers yesterday’s big headline gets.

And compared to a blog, newspaper headlines are written in stone.

And here I am not only ignoring the Latest News, ignoring the Latest Blogs, but thinking about history, a time when things actually HAPPENED.

I believe it was HD who recommended “Believe Me, I’m Lying” by Bryan Holiday. It is by a rich man who made his money manipulating blogs.

It is, in our terms, a book by a successful practitioner in the field of “Why is This Information Produced?” As I have said many, many times,  BUGS is an exercise in what NOT to do if you want a successful blog, just as my career in politics that produced so  much was an exercise in what NOT to do if you want to make General of SES in the civil service or popular staffer with job offers on the Hill.

Changing history is NEVER done by a person seeking popularity with any “in” crowd.

This makes my approach totally uncool.

My aim is to legitimize the argument for White survival. In fact, Europe was worried about its falling birthrates in the 1970s and proposals were made to subsidize people who had children. One of the big arguments against this was, of course, that, “Hitler did that.”

But nobody questioned the fact that Europeans were concerned about Europeans dying out.

Another thing that is not new is for the people who are going to make the changes getting no attention right now. The Free Soil Party, running on the later Republican platform of forbidding the spread of slavery, got less than one percent of the vote in 1848.

In mid-20s, the Nazi Party got less than one percent of the German vote.

In 1932 Time Magazine still thought Adolf Hitler was a monarchist!

Lenin took power in the vacuum of Kerensky being unable to form a stable government.

We are in the age I predicted when non-Whites are no longer looking for anti-white Whites to represent them.

Newsweek just went out of print a few years after openly giving up news and becoming solid and openly leftist. It closed down with a cover story blasting Obama.

And an endless Hell hath no fury like an insider who can’t get anybody to take his calls any more.

In the future, anti-Semites will be a dime a dozen. A voice for the saving of my OWN race is almost absent. Like Arabs, black leaders, and an endless list of others, one more Hate Jews outfit contributes nothing.

In the future, the only voice that represents Whites will be unique.

Holiday explains this perfectly and in detail. He got so rich manipulating blogs that he can tell bloggers the truth and not give a damn.

What sells on blogs is anger.

What turns off bloggers is not having an oven-ready solution.

His big point is that these precooked formulas are 100%. The competition on blogs is so intense that there are NO blogs that violate this rule.  Even in the peak years of the Yellow Press some newspapers survived providing SOME quality.

Not so in the blog age.  No blog gets impressive numbers without adhering to all the rules.

If you are pro-white and you want a blog to make it, it has to incite ANGER. It has to hit responsive notes. Being pro-White cannot compete with the good old Hate Jews.

If you want to plant ideas for future thought, Holiday will laugh his ass off at you.

But Holiday would be the first to tell you he has no interest whatsoever in The Endgame.

Jewish Control of US Congress Does Not Depend on Number of Jews Elected

via DavidDuke.com

Even though Jews are overrepresented by a factor of over 300% in the US Congress and 500% in the Senate—hysterical reports have surfaced in media which Jewish Supremacists reserve for themselves claiming that ‘Jewish influence over the US government is declining.’

The reports—started by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) and picked up by the Times of Israel—but of course ignored in the media which the Jewish Supremacists direct for consumption by the non-Jewish American population—claimed that a predicted reduction in the number of Jews in Congress after the January 2015 elections have “raised fears” of declining Jewish influence.

The chutzpah of even making this claim is so outrageous that it is guaranteed that the report will not make any of the media aimed at non-Jews.

What makes the story even more bizarre is that its central proposition is undermined by the Jewish House members contacted by the JTA, and quoted in the story:
“Jewish representation is still strong in Congress, and we are serving in positions of influence,” Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), the senior Democrat on the powerful Appropriations Committee, told JTA in an email. 
In addition to Lowey, Jewish leaders in the House include Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), the senior Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.), the senior Democrat on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.

A number of younger Jewish members are rising through the ranks — Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) succeeded [Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), who until he retired in 2012 was the top Democrat on the Middle East subcommittee] Ackerman in helming Democrats on the Middle East subcommittee.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), one of the lead Israel champions in the House, said support for Israel was undiminished. He noted the overwhelming vote last month to add $225 million to existing funding for Iron Dome, the anti-missile system that protected Israelis during the recent Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip.

“Look at the Iron Dome vote,” he said. “Four Republicans and four Democrats voted against. Support for Israel is at a very high level.”
Sherman’s quote underlines the point: even though there are currently 31 Jews out of the 435 seats in Congress (7% of the seats, or over 300% proportionally higher than the 2% total Jewish population of the US), and 10 Jews out of the 100 Senators, (a 500% proportionality disproportion) the Jewish Lobby’s ability to influence the US government does not depend on how many Jews there in Congress.

Jewish power is a much deeper and embedded issue which starts with the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) and then stretches back into the Jewish Supremacist control of major campaign funding, control of the banking system, and control of the major “US” media corporations.

A recent report in The New Yorker magazine even said that AIPAC completely controls Congress through its ability to fund the campaigns of all would-be Congressmen and Senators—from both parties.

The New Yorker boasted that an AIPAC reception during its annual policy conference draws most congressmen and senators than any other government meeting except a joint session of Congress or a State of Union address:
AIPAC is prideful about its influence. Its promotional literature points out that a reception during its annual policy conference, in Washington, “will be attended by more members of Congress than almost any other event, except for a joint session of Congress or a State of the Union address.”
The Jewish media—the JTA and the Times of Israel in particular—know very well of this ability by the Jewish lobby to control Congress—in fact, this is how they have been doing it for decades.

Why then now produce articles like the one illustrated above suggesting that Jewish power is “declining”?

There are two reasons for reports such as these.

Firstly, the Jews-only media and the Jewish lobby understand that their Jews-only racist tribalist state of Israel has come under increasing international condemnation because of the Internet’s ability to show what their media suppresses—the brutal, racist and murderous nature of Israel and Zionist Supremacism.

Secondly, the Jewish lobby understands that this increasing exposure of the true racist, Gentile-hating nature of Jewish Supremacism has brought about a reaction against them in the general public.

These two factors have forced the Jewish lobby onto the defensive, and the first step in regaining the offensive is to once again generate complete Jewish unity.

There is no better way to create Jewish unity by raising the twin bogeymen of “declining Jewish power” while simultaneously promoting the idea that all Gentiles “hate Jews.”


The spreading of a panic story among Jews only that they are “losing power” over the US government forms the second part of the tactic to once again corral Jews into a unified bloc against non-Jews.

Fortunately for the world, the Internet will once again undermine these efforts.

'Hitler's Table Talk' Study Hour, Episode 27

via Carolyn Yeager

Listen Now

Hitler liked wearing lederhosen during the 1920's
Carolyn Yeager and Ray Goodwin read and comment on the Feb. 17-22, 1942 dinner table monologues by the German Leader, as taken down in shorthand by trusted aide Heinrich Heim. Included in this episode:
  • Country estates in Hungary compared to  Wagner's Wahnfried and his own Berghof, and the stories of Karl May compared to American classics;
  • Hitler's preference for Bavarian-Austrian lederhosen (leather shorts for men) and why he had to give them up;
  • Wrong to shower too much care on colonial subjects, plus not enough theaters in Germany;
  • Why Hitler plans for his great observatory to be built at Linz, and the importance of teaching the people the wonders of the physical universe;
  • The privilege of playing the role of patron to the arts and sciences;
  • Ferdinand Porsche is the greatest engineering genius in Germany at the time, and Hitler sees continued success for the Volkswagen;
  • Praise for Schwartz and Amman as great talents who served the NSDAP, plus strong words against the "Jewish virus."
The edition of Hitler's Table Talk being used was translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, published by Enigma Books, New York, and can be found as a pdf here.

They Serve Us Still

via Cambria Will Not Yield

Deeper than speech our love, stronger than life our tether… –Kipling
 


I am dreaming of the mountains of my home,
Of the mountains where in childhood I would roam.
I have dwelt ‘neath summer skies,
Where the summer never dies,
But my heart is in the mountains of my home.

I can see the little homestead on the hill;
I can hear the magic music of the rill;
There is nothing to compare,
With the love that once was there,
In that lonely little homestead on the hill.

I can see the quiet churchyard down below,
Where the mountain breezes wander to and fro,
And when God my soul will keep,
It is there I want to sleep,
With those dear old folks that loved me long ago.

– W S Gwynne Williams



After my father’s death in the late spring, most of the family historical documents were given to me. I spent this last weekend going through old photograph albums, family records, keepsakes such as old Boy Scout caps, and other memorabilia that would only be of interest to me and my children. The word ‘bittersweet’ probably best describes my weekend immersion in my family’s history. It was very pleasant to see pictures and personal records of my parents, my grandparents, and my great-grandparents. Most of the pictures were taken on special occasions – birthdays, holidays, marriages, and vacations – all occasions where the clan was assembled and having fun. Funerals are not generally a time for family photo opps.

I also felt a great deal of sadness when looking at the old photos and family records, because all the subjects of the photos and the records have passed away. My hope is that my loved ones have not passed away, that death “will prove unreal at last,” but my faith eases the pain, it does not eliminate it. Possibly there are people of firmer faith who do not feel a sense of loss when they think of their honored dead, but I can’t count myself among their number.

When I look through my family records on both the maternal and paternal sides, I do not see anyone who won great honors and distinctions in this world. On the Welsh side, they were coal miners and on the German side they were craftsmen and farmers, not one member of the royalty or aristocracy in their ranks. And though many served in the military, none won medals for astounding feats of bravery. But they seemed to be, from my perspective as family historian, very great men and women because they were all white people. I’m not talking about just the outside: they were “white, pure white inside.” They lived and died close to their racial hearth fire and the God of their ascending race; the spiritual treasure that they passed on, a bred-in-the-bone faith in the living God, was of infinitely more value than any material treasure.

I still go to some of the same parks where my ancestors held family reunions. But I no longer see white people who are white, pure white inside, having family get-togethers there. Instead I see blended families of white, black, yellow, and every other color having a type of anti-white family reunion. They are celebrating their diversity, which translates to a celebration of everything that is not traditionally white and Christian. The mad-dog liberals say such new family gatherings are wonderful because the old, all-white families were evil. The propositional Christians say that there is no reason why an interracial family can’t be just as Christian and just as traditionally European as an all-white family. “Nothing has changed except the pigmentation of the skin, which is of no significance.” Is that true? — can a racially blended family still be Christian as our European ancestors were Christian? I say most emphatically that they cannot, because the Christian faith is passed on through the blood, not the head. The propositional Christian says that blended families can be wonderful Christian families, because pure mind, from which we receive our knowledge of the true God, has no color; therefore, there is no need for a familial, racial hearth fire.

The propositional view of faith and race is taken as a given by modern Christians, despite the fact that the Christian faith has virtually disappeared since the new non-“racist” version of Christianity has become the norm. Of course if you change the definition of Christianity to ‘How diverse are your families and your churches?’ then you are in line with modern liberalism and you can declare the modern age to be the most Christian age in history. You can ignore legalized abortion, the breakup of the patriarchal Christian family, and the ongoing assault on the white race, because such things pale in significance to the one essential sign of the true faith: “Do you worship at the shrine of the colored gods and do all homage and honor to them by offering your children up to them in loving sacrifice for the sins of the white race?”

This is why there is such consternation in the churches when there is not enough “diversity.” They must be diverse, because where there is no diversity there is no faith. The racist Europeans of the past believed, as St. Paul believed, that there could be no faith without charity, but that article of faith has been replaced by diversity, which is the supreme article of faith in the churches and in Liberaldom at large which encompasses, and its ethos rules, the Christian churches.

In Shakespeare’s Henry IV Part I, the mystic Owen Glendower claims he can conjure spirits from the deep: “I can call spirits from the vasty deep.” Hotspur will have none of that: “Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?” We are ordered to believe that the new faith, which has not charity and has no place for our people, is the true faith. We are asked to make this mystic leap, against the dear-bought wisdom of our ancestors and against our hearts, which tell us to cling to one non-diverse people and one non-blended God.

There is a continuity in my family’s bloodline that ends with my parents. Until the time of the World II generation there were no liberals in my family tree. They were working class people who lived by their prejudices. Their faith was Kiplingesque: “This was my father’s belief, And this is also mine.” But both my father and my mother were the first of their line to go to college. They learned what they believed to be the better way, the way of enlightenment. They became progressive Christians. My own spiritual journey entailed, of necessity, what my parents considered a regression to prejudice and superstition. I think most children of modern parents must make a similar regression if they want to establish contact with the living God, who can only be known in and through our people. By rejecting my parents’ liberalism in order to reconnect with my grandsires, I became spiritually older than my parents. I viewed them as my beloved, but wayward children. Both became much closer to God by the time of their deaths, because of a lingering nostalgia for their people and an inability to accept the homosexual agenda of the modern churches. The strings of the past can often pull a lost soul back into the fold, which is why the liberals, at Satan’s command, seek to sever every single string connecting the Europeans to their past.

In H. V. Morton’s book In Search of Wales, he writes with amazement about the amount of good reading done by ordinary Welsh coal miners. They were poor, but they were not uneducated. This was the case with my ancestors, many of whom came from the Welsh coal regions that H. W. Morton wrote about. I saw many of what we now call the “classics,” which remain unread in our modern, more ‘sophisticated’ times, in the trunks and boxes of my grandsires – Dickens, Defoe, Scott, Cooper, the Brothers’ Grimm, etc. And the most important thing about their reading was that it was not done for a ‘class,’ the bardic European authors were not put through the academic ringer and found to be irrelevant fools. They were read for enjoyment and for enlightenment, but not the type of enlightenment that comes from intellectual speculation. The bards of Europe point us to the light of Europe, not to the light of a new utopian age.

The Greek system of education is a flawed system for the simple reason that it is a system conceived by abstract minds. The idea that a select band of men, isolated from the community, can sit around and think great thoughts, which they will then share with the world is nonsense. Look to the other side of Greek culture, where Homer sits by the hearth fire and tells stories of the Greek heroes and heroines. We, the “educated” Europeans, have lost contact with our bardic culture. The Christian European minstrels have been silenced, and all we hear at the European hearth fires are stories of liberals, which always amount to some type of Atticus Finch/Tom Robinson tale of the prejudiced whites, the sacred black man, and the unprejudiced, enlightened white man. We must reconnect with our older bardic culture and divest ourselves of our university educations before we can see the light that shineth in darkness.

The Europeans’ divorce from their bardic ancestors took place incrementally, but once the change took place, it became deeply rooted in the Europeans’ collective soul. It will take the spiritual equivalent of a blazing inferno to burn the intellectual speculation virus from the European people. It will take Christian Goths, loving and hating with all their hearts. It doesn’t seem possible to purge Europe of the liberals and their colored henchmen, but large fires are often started with very tiny sparks. The liberals still worry about their own demise, hence they squelch all opposition to their reign of terror. All negro atrocities are permitted, because such atrocities serve Liberaldom, but let one white man resist any part of the liberal agenda, and all the powers of Liberaldom are brought to bear against such an individual. Nevertheless, we can summon strength from our past and overcome our liberal overlords if we are willing to embrace the prejudices of our provincial, European ancestors, those “dear old folk from long ago.”

Homosexual Wantonly Exploits Family by 'Coming Out,' to Raise Money on Facebook

via The White Voice

A homosexual male Daniel Ashley Pierce, who enjoys sexual contact with other males and speaks in an extremely strange voice, decided to come out to his family after bashing them on Facebook.

In a clearly contrived bit to raise money for his sexual proclivities, the man tells his parents, who he lives off of, that he is a homosexual.

After expressing their displeasure with his lifestyle choice, they told him that he must leave the house at the ripe old age of twenty. He agreed to move out and kept arguing.

His campaign to raise money off of being a sodomite has raised nearly $100,000.

I guess "it pays to be gay."

The rest, you'll just have to hear for yourself.

An Alternative History of Scottish Nationalism

via Alternative Right

The remarkable rise of the Scottish National Party (SNP), which is now a liberal-left party led largely by 1968 leftists, masks the ethno-nationalist roots of the party and the broader ethno-nationalist undercurrent of the Scottish Nationalist movement as a whole. In this article, we intend to explore some of the personalties that made up this early movement, their activities and detail some of their ideas that influenced the early SNP and which would make the likes of Alex Salmond, the current leader of the SNP, cringe in embarrassment, even though they make up a substantial section of the SNP's early history and political direction.

Lewis Spence and the Mysteries of Britain

The first Scottish nationalist to contest a Westminster parliamentary seat in Scotland was the journalist, poet and folklorist Lewis Spence in January 1929. He polled 842 votes (a worthy 4.5% of the vote) in the Midlothian and Peebles Northern constituency which was won by Labour in a three-cornered fight with Spence and the Conservatives. Spence's Scottish National Movement had combined in 1928 with other Scottish Home Rule organisations, including the Gaelic revivalist Ruariridh Erskine's Scots National League, to form the National Party of Scotland (NPS). Later in 1934, the NPS amalgamated with the more conservative Scottish Party to form the modern-day Scottish National Party which exists today under the capable leadership of Alex Salmond.

An idea of what animated Lewis Spence's political thought can be extracted from his 1905 book The Mysteries of Britain: Secret Rites and Traditions of Ancient Britain (reprinted in 1994 by Senate). The book is dripping with erudition and politically incorrect racial and ethnic analysis relating to the origins of the pre-Christian native religion of the ancient British Isles and the indigenous people of those islands who practised it. Spence concludes: "In no individual born in these islands does there not flow the blood of the Druid priests and seers, and I confidently rely on British mystics, whatever their particular predilections, to unite in this greatest of all possible quests, the restoration of our native Secret Tradition," arguing that "we Britons are much too prone to look for excellence outside of the boundaries of our own island" and "that we should so weakly rely on alien systems of thought while it is possible for us to re-establish our own is surely miserable."

He called for the "restoration of the entire fabric of British native mysticism" concluding "the missing stones of that fabric lie directly beneath our feet in the soil of our own island, and it depends entirely upon our patriotism and our vigilance whether they shall be recovered and once more fill the gaps and seams in the ancient edifice of British arcane wisdom."

Wendy Wood
In contrast to the electoral approach of the NPS/SNP, which had mixed results, a group of militant ethno-nationalists led by the English-born Wendy Wood, a founder member of the NPS, via Lewis Spence's Scottish National Movement, decided that a non-party approach would be more effective and left the infant SNP to engage in more direct militant action. This involved rowdy protests and demonstrations against all forms of Unionism as well as speaking and propaganda tours across Scotland advocating a Scottish cultural revival and political independence. In the 1930s, she founded the youth group, Scottish Watch, which later became, in 1949, the Scottish Patriots, which existed until her death in 1981 boasting a few thousand members to rival the SNP in popularity amongst Scottish ethno-nationalists.

Wood is also cited in the Preface to Spence's Mysteries of Britain book where he states: "I cannot close without expressing my sincere thanks to Miss Wendy Wood for the eight excellent drawings which she has made for this book. Deeply imbued with the Keltic spirit and versed in the details of Keltic antiquity, she has infused them with the richness of Keltic imagination and mysticism."

Scottish cultural and social nationalism

The leader of the Scots National League, Ruairidh Erskine, despite his aristocratic lineage, had close links to important Scottish socialist figures, such as John Maclean, the influential Scottish Marxist and a left-wing nationalist. However, despite his support for land reform and other socialist measures, Erskine was regarded as a reactionary figure by many on the burgeoning socialist left in Scotland because of his deep commitment and support for a Scottish Gaelic cultural revival, including everyday use and development of the language. Erskine was also close friends with another Gaelic revivalist, the journalist, William Gillies, another nationalist with close links to the socialist left, but who, like Erskine, was more interested in the revival of the Gaelic language and who campaigned to make Gaelic the national language of Scotland in order to counteract the increasing hegemony of the English language and English-speakers amongst the Scottish people, particularly the working classes in Scotland's towns and cities.

Gillies also advocated close links to Irish nationalists and was involved in the establishment of a volunteer force called Fianna na h-Alba that was ready to use armed force to win Scottish independence. However, following advice by the legendary Irish nationalist leader, Michael Collins, the plan was abandoned after he argued in a letter that the militant Scottish nationalists "do not appreciate the particular difficulties they are up against," particularly with regards the lack of significant public support in Scotland for such action and the relative strength of the British state north of the border compared to the situation in Ireland.

Scottish Fascism

Another significant pre-war figure in politically incorrect Scottish nationalism was the celebrated Scottish poet, Hugh MacDiarmid (born Christopher Murray Grieve) a founder member of the National Party of Scotland, who in 1923, a year after Mussolini's rise to power in Italy, wrote two articles calling for a Scottish Fascism which would engineer as part of its programme a Scottish national revival and radical social justice across the country. MacDiarmid also set up a Scottish Fascist combat organisation called Clann Albainn which existed as an underground movement for many years, even after its founder finally embraced communism. Later, he would be expelled from the SNP because of his communist views. Upon joining the Communist Party, MacDiarmid, rather ironically, would eventually be expelled for his nationalist views!

Like many European nationalists, including the Flemish, Breton and Ukrainian nationalists, along with nationalists closer to home in Wales and Ireland, MacDiarmid saw opportunities for Scottish nationalism in the advance of Nazi Germany and the possible unravelling of the British state following a German invasion of England.

In 1941, he wrote to a friend: "On balance I regard the Axis powers, tho' more violently evil for the time being, less dangerous than our own government in the long run and indistinguishable in purpose." A year earlier he had written: "If the Germans win they could not hold their gains for long, but if the French and British win it will be infinitely more difficult to get rid of them" and, as a result, he hoped for a quick Nazi victory in order to advance the Scottish nationalist cause.

Towards the end of his life, MacDiarmid became the President of the 1320 Club (the year of the Declaration of Abroath which reaffirmed Scotland's determination to remain independent of England at the time) which was the ultra-nationalist forerunner to the ethno-nationalist Siol nan Gaidheal 'ginger group' which rose to prominance in the seventies and eighties.

"Scotland's Quisling"

Arthur Donaldson
Arthur Donaldson, a future leader of the SNP between 1960 and 1969, just like MacDiarmid, hoped that an early Nazi victory over the British government would advance the Scottish nationalist cause. Along with a number of other leading Scottish nationalists, he was arrested in May 1941 because of his support of the Scottish Neutrality League and the suspicions of MI5 that some Scottish nationalists intended to set up a breakaway Scottish government in the event of a Nazi invasion of Britain and that Donaldson, according to MI5, was a potential leadar of this government and "Scotland's Quisling" in the making! Donaldson and his compatriots were arrested and held without charge under Defence Regulation 18B by the British state. He was held for six weeks, but was eventually released as the British authorities decided not to reveal the identity of the MI5 agent who had infiltrated them.

The report by the MI5 agent that prompted their arrest was later released after Donaldson's death and it included a conversation with Donaldson which prompted MI5's belief that he was a National Socialist sympathiser and a potential pro-German collaborator.

The report read:

During a long conversation, Donaldson gave great praise to Germany saying that England would be completely crushed by the early Spring; the Government would leave the country and that England's position would be absolutely hopeless, as poverty and famine would be their only reward for declaring war on Germany. Scotland on the other hand had great possibilities. We must, he declared, be able to show the German Government that we are organised and that we have a clear cut policy for the betterment of Scotland; that we have tried our best to persuade the English Government that we want Scottish independence and that we are not in with them in this war. If we can do that you can be sure that Germany will give us every possible assistance in our early struggle. The time is not yet ripe for us to start a visible campaign against England, but when fire and confusion is at its height in England, we can start in earnest. He then went on to tell them he had an idea in his mind for fixing up a wireless transmitting set in a thickly populated district in Glasgow or Edinburgh, in order to give broadcasts to the public. At the moment he is working very hard in an endeavour to combine all the Nationalists together as a unit, whereby they can strike out with great force when the time comes.
After the war, during his leadership of the SNP, the party began to organise more professionally under his guidance and poll more credibly at elections which, as a result, culminated in the famous Hamilton by-election victory for the SNP in 1967. However, in 1969, Donaldson was replaced as leader of the party after a leadership challenge by the social democrat, Billy Wolfe, who helped pave the way for Alex Salmond's ascendancy in the party today.

Seed of the Gaels

Post-war, the flame of Scottish ethnic nationalism was mainly kept alive by Siol nan Gaidheal (SnG), which means in Scottish Gaelic - the Offspring or Seed of the Gaels!

Siol nan Gaidheal - kicked out of the SNP at the same time as Alex Salmond
 This Scottish ethno-nationalist group was established in 1978 and paraded in blackshirts and kilts at Scottish Nationalist demonstrations and protests organised by the SNP and other groups. In 1982, SnG was proscribed from the SNP, along with the socialist 79 Group, which included Alex Salmond in its ranks though his expulsion was later overturned by the leadership. SnG went into a rapid decline after that setback but has subsequently been revived a number of times, most notably by Jackie Stokes, a militant ultra-nationalist, in the late eighties.

In the 1980s, SnG produced a magazine called Firinn Albannach (Truth of Scotland) which was described as being "anti-communist, neo-fascist and sometimes violent in tone" in a survey of British and Irish political groups conducted by liberal academics from Manchester University.

Free Scotland

The Free Scotland Party, led by Brian Nugent, broke away from the SNP in 2004 over disagreements about the European Union (EU) and Scotland's future membership once independent. The party stood for an independent Scotland, independent of both the British state and the EU superstate, with Norway, an independent non-EU country, identified as a model for a future independent Scotland. The party contested a number of elections in 2005 and 2007 with Jim Fairlie, a former Deputy Leader of the SNP, standing as one of the candidates, but none were successful.

A Scottish Future for Scottish Nationalists

Despite the current stranglehold on the party by 1968 leftists, the SNP is steeped in an ethno-nationalist tradition with roots that go back to its very origins and formation before the Second World War. Genuine Scottish nationalists now need to consider their position in Scottish politics. They must, in our opinion, unite and rally around a Scottish First-type organisation that can provide direction and meaning following independence which now seems highly possible, even if the NO campaign is temporarily able to halt the trend towards independence. It is obvious that the Tory/UKIP/BNP unionist position, bolstered by the religious sectarian cranks of the Orange Order, is no longer an option for serious ethno-nationalist activists and campaigners. The same logic also applies to the Scottish sovereignists of Free Scotland who should also be approached for their views on a possible realignment and amalgamation. In the meantime, we wish Scotland and its people well in their journey towards self-determination and freedom.