Apr 22, 2015

The 'Gas Chambers' Change Location Once again

via The New Observer

The lead-up to the opening of the “Bookkeeper of Auschwitz” Oskar Groening trial has started–and has been marked by the “gas chamber” at Auschwitz suddenly moving location away from the long-claimed “bunkers underground the crematoria” to a “half-built farmyard outside the camp,” according to a new report by Holocaust historian Peter Winter.

Writing on his personal blog, Winter, who is author of the best-selling The Six Million: Fact or Fiction, wrote that the “first day of the Oskar Groening court case has now dawned. SS sergeant Oskar Groening, 93, faces trial for being a guard at Auschwitz—and his appearance has generated mass media coverage in an overt attempt to hold back the growing tide of Holocaust revisionism.

“The very first thing that emerged from media coverage of the first day of media coverage is that the ‘gas chambers’ at Auschwitz have now completely changed location!

“The traditional Holocaust Storyteller’s narrative is that Jews were gassed at underground bunkers next to the crematoria in the main camp at Auschwitz.

“Now, however, according to the Daily Mail newspaper and other coverage, the ‘gas chambers’ were actually a “half-built farmyard near to the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp”—and not in the underground bunkers at all.

“According to the Daily Mail coverage, Groening allegedly said:

“‘On one night in January 1943 I saw for the first time how the Jews were actually gassed. It was in a half-built farmyard near to the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp. A gas chamber was built there. We were searching the wood nearby for prisoners who had escaped.’

“The shifting location of the “gas chambers” is something mentioned in The Six Million: Fact or Fiction, under the section discussing an article in the politically mainstream journal OstEuropa in May 2002 by the managing editor of the German magazine Der Spiegel, Fritjof Meyer (Themen der Zeitgeschichte    Fritjof Meyer    Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz.  Neue Erkenntnisse durch neue Archivfunde”, Heft 5/2002). In that article, Meyer wrote that “new” research made it clear that there had indeed been no gassings in the mortuaries of the crematoria (as claimed by “eyewitnesses” and all the forced “confessions” obtained from SS-men). Instead, he wrote, the gassings had actually taken place in the sites now called “Bunker 1” and “Bunker 2,” a distance away from the crematoria buildings.

“The Daily Mail article offers no such explanation, of course, and just presumes that its readers are uninformed enough not to know the details of the claimed “underground gas chambers with the crematoria” story.”

Winter ends his report with an assessment of how the Groening trial will proceed:
“The Groening trial will, as predicted earlier, follow the usual pattern used in all such processes in post-war Germany: because it is a criminal offence to even suggest that there were no “gas chambers,” the only defense open to Groening will be to admit that they existed, but to deny that he was ever involved in any of the operations.
“It is a defense which, in the hysterical media-generated lynch-mob atmosphere, is unlikely to succeed.

“Nonetheless, it will be amusing to see how the location of the “gas chamber” at Auschwitz jumps around from place to place once again.”

Responding to a Jewish Critic

via The Realist Report

I recently received the following email from a Jewish man living in the United Kingdom. I've decided to post this particular critic's email along with my reply for educational purposes. 

I hope that this will be an on-going dialogue, but given the fact most Jews are simply incapable of rationally dealing with criticisms of their individual and collective behavior, their subversive and destructive agendas, and their sacred, entirely fraudulent myths (especially the fake "Holocaust" narrative of WWII), I highly doubt that will happen.

But, you never know. This man seems genuine and honest at the very least - perhaps he will hear me out and respond rationally and intelligently. -JRF
I stumbled across your blog and twitter account and I just wanted to say how upset it made me. I never send emails and I have had to set this up just to say this so please please give me 3 minutes of your time and read this. 
I am a Jew, I was born in London although both my parents were born in Warsaw, Poland. Both my parents spent time in Treblinka Concentration Camp and while they both survived their time there, the rest of their families did not. It was an experience which my mother up until her death suffered severe trauma from. I find it simply beyond belief that you view the Holocaust as a made up lie as a result of Jewish dominance in the media. My mother was the daughter of a butcher and my father used to construct tables. They were never involved in finance. They never had anything to do with the media and nor were they trying to brainwash people into pitying them for their own gains and I think to say that is an insult to their memories and their families memories.

I am simply shocked that an intelligent man such as yourself can deny an event like this ever happening and more than that I don't understand why you tweet anti-semitic remarks and complaints about Jews. I am a train driver and I assure you I do not have any influence in the media or in the world of politics or finance. I therefore fail to see why my people are in your responsibility part of some conspiracy to do evil acts. And it breaks my heart to think that rather than attack individuals who you see as corrupt and responsible for what you view as wrong in the world you instead focus your hatred on a race of people, I am a Jew but I am in no way responsible for some of the various crimes you have associated with my people. 
One last thing I would like to say is that I do not even like Israel. There is a difference between being Jewish and being Israeli as much as there is a difference between being Catholic and being Italian. I am in no way answerable to the actions of Israel and while I like the idea that there is a Jewish state but honestly I disagree with just about everything it does, I am not Israeli and have no attraction to the country nor do I ever intend on going there and I 100% support Palestinian Independence. Once again I suggest your complaints are perhaps at individual people as opposed to the whole Jewish faith. 
I just find it upsetting to see someone such as yourself posting such hateful remarks about my race when genuinely I don't see why. There really just isn't this world wide conspiracy of Jews and your arguments for the Holocaust being faked are just so offensive and crazy.

I don't like to think of people as bad people but it hurts me when a race to which I belong receives such endless hatred from a person such as yourself, I simply do not understand. 
If you have reached this point I would like to thank you for reading and I'm sure you hate me because I'm Jewish but please ask yourself why you hate a man before you know them or have ever met them and what exactly I'm supposed to have done wrong.

Please feel free to reply and I would welcome any questions.
My reply:

Hello, thank you for taking the time to set up an email account to express how upset you are with my political views and the basic facts I am stating, highlighting, and commenting upon on my personal website and Twitter feed.

I've come to understand that most Jews, and ignorant, weak people generally, operate on their base emotions, rather than through an intellectual process utilizing logic and critical reasoning.

That being said, you raise several issues which are worth commenting upon.

First, you've obviously noticed that I focus much of my writings on the alleged Jewish "Holocaust" narrative of WWII we are all supposed to blindly accept.

In your email, you claim that both of your parents spent time in the Treblinka concentration camp during WWII. Furthermore, you claim that although your parents survived their stay at the camp, "the rest of their families did not."

Of course, I cannot verify your claims. I don't necessarily deny them either, but I do find it interesting that, once again, we have an example of Jews surviving a "Nazi death camp" (i.e., Treblinka), yet at the same time we are supposed to believe that "the Nazis" implemented a state sanctioned plan to systematically murder European Jewry resulting in the death of 6 million Jews.

If "the Nazis" did in fact have such a policy, how in the world did your parents survive Treblinka?! Isn't the fact that they did in fact survive "the Holocaust" proof that at least part of the official "Holocaust" narrative is false?

I'm curious: have you ever sat down and investigated what "Holocaust" revisionists have discovered about the supposed "Nazi death camps," especially Treblinka, which has such a deep connection to you and your family? Surely you know that there are two sides to every story.

Eric Hunt, a brilliant and courageous "Holocaust" revisionist and film-maker who I have interviewed on my radio program, recently produced an interesting documentary about Treblinka which you can view for free online.

Have you seen it? What did you think about it? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, you have been lied to about the alleged Jewish "Holocaust" your parents and ancestors purportedly experienced (even though your parents didn't even perish in it!)?

The simple fact of the matter is that the alleged Jewish "Holocaust" narrative is false in virtually every aspect. There were no "homicidal gas chambers." Six million Jews were not murdered in a systematic fashion by the Germans and their allies during WWII. These are the basic facts and points "Holocaust" revisionists have been documenting and explaining for years now, and they have thoroughly, scientifically, and conclusively proven that the alleged Jewish "Holocaust" is just not true, especially as it is depicted by our mainstream mass media, Hollywood, and educational establishment.

My good friend and noted "Holocaust" revisionist Fritz Berg recently opined:
No one was "gassed" at Auschwitz or any other German camp. Although many autopsies were made on the dead by the Allies, none showed any evidence of gassing or poisoning. The evidence for "gassings" consists entirely of "eyewitness" statements. ALL of the "eyewitnesses" were LIARS and are easily shown to be liars; there are NO exceptions. The Germans who confessed about "gassings" did so o-n-l-y because of torture - far more brutal than anything done by the US recently.

The huge numbers of "holocaust survivors" - well into the hundreds of thousands still today - are undeniable proof that the extermination claims are a hoax. "They" survived because the Nazis never tried to exterminate them in the first place. The Nazis kept them alive as best they could under nearly impossible circumstances. The r-e-a-l mass murderers were the western Allies.
The entire "Holocaust" narrative is an anti-German, anti-White propaganda story that has been institutionalized in the Western world, which has been used to advance international Jewry's political and economic agenda, as well as cover up the very real war crimes and atrocities committed by the Western Allies and Soviet Union. It's as simple as that.

Critically discussing and analyzing the alleged Jewish "Holocaust" narrative is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the vast majority of people, particularly Jews. The propaganda associated with the "Holocaust" is so traumatic, emotional, and horrifying, most people simply cannot deal with the subject rationally and intelligently.

To be frank, you appear to be one of those individuals. And I don't blame you for that. Being a Jew yourself, I imagine it would be very difficult to critically examine the official "Holocaust" narrative. But I encourage you to do so. You will discover that it is entirely fraudulent. It is a weapon used to demonize Western civilization, White racial identity, and Adolf Hitler and National Socialist Germany, while at the same time promoting extreme Jewish ethnocentrism, tribalism, and a false sense of persecution and victimhood.

Secondly, I do believe that there are Jews in the world, both historically and contemporarily, who really do not play an important or central role in the overall Jewish agenda. You are likely one of these Jews.

In fact, since I first began investigating various aspects of the "New World Order" and "conspiracy theories," I've come to realize that there are many important and courageous dissidents, scholars, journalists, and philosophers of Jewish descent who have exposed important aspects of hidden history, international Zionism, Jewish identity politics, and related subjects.

For example, Gilad Atzmon, an Israeli-born internationally renowned philosopher, writer, and saxophonist who has renounced his Jewish faith and identity, has written extensively about Jewish identity and tribalism, international Zionism, the Jewish state of Israel, political correctness, and the Jewish influence over the political left.

Brother Nathanael Kapner, a Jewish-born convert to Orthodox Christianity, is one of the most popular and insightful political commentators operating in the alternative media today. He is certainly not afraid of exposing the agenda of the organized Jewish community and its subversion and perversion of traditional Western civilization, in addition to its attack on the Christian faith.

Other important Jewish critics and dissidents I've come across include Benjamin Freedman, Israel Shahak, Jack Bernstein, and Henry Makow, to name only a few prominent examples.

That being said, the vast majority of Jews - the overwhelming majority - support the overall Jewish agenda in the Western world (i.e., culture distortion, massive non-White immigration, "diversity" and "multiculturalism" [read: White genocide], homosexual rights, sexual degeneracy and perversion, wars for Israel in the Middle East, bailouts for crooked Wall Street bankers, etc.) while hypocritically supporting the Jewish ethno-state in the Middle East known as Israel. You yourself even stated that you "like the idea that there is a Jewish state" even though you disagree with many (or most) of its policies.

Let me ask you a very straight-forward question: do you support the idea of independent, sovereign White nations, free from the insidious and subversive influence of Jews? Do you support the notion that White people deserve their own homelands, their own governments, their own media and educational systems? I support the idea of an independent Jewish state, just as I support the idea of independent states for all racial and ethnic groups. What about you?

Finally, just because I criticize Jews and highlight inconvenient facts that make Jews uncomfortable does not mean that I "hate" all Jews. Most Jews, yourself included, view any sort of criticism of Jewry or any sort of independent analysis of various historical events as somehow "hateful" or "bigoted" - even "anti-Semitic." I find this weak, childish mindset to be totally contrary to my own personal intellectual outlook and worldview, and Western political and intellectual traditions historically.

Criticizing Jews or anyone else - Blacks, Mexicans, illegal aliens, homosexuals, women, etc. - does not equate to "hatred" of the individual or collective group being criticized. This typical Jewish position is so weak, pathetic, and dishonorable I am finding it more and more difficult to tolerate.

Grow up buddy. Stop whining and crying about my alleged "hatred" of Jews and objectively deal with the facts and perspectives I am presenting if you want to continue this dialogue.

John Friend

End-Times Buffoonery

via Soul of the East

Politics and religion all too often assume odd and distorted forms in America. The United States has long been the home of a wide assortment of bizarre and eccentric sects and cults, most being harmless, or at least lacking the ability to do any serious harm outside of their immediate proximity without large-scale followings nor serious political access. But there are always exceptions, and one of the more prominent and influential ones is the highly-politicized and well-funded Dispensationalist movement, a vocal and well-represented faction among fundamentalist Protestants. Not only do Dispensationalists have a large scale following, but they also manage to wield considerable influence in Washington, especially on US foreign policy.

The relationship between fundamentalist Protestant eschatology of the Dispensationalist variety and America’s geopolitical agenda can be clearly seen in the figure of Hal Lindsey. In the early 1970’s he published a book, The Late Great Planet Earth, which proved a bestseller among fundamentalist Protestants. Scrawled during the height of the Cold War, Lindsey’s work proposed that Soviet Russia was the sinister entity known as Gog spoken about by the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel, and that it would soon invade Israel, thus bringing about Armageddon. Lindsey was not an isolated figure by any means; a film based on his book – narrated by none other than Orson Welles – was made, and his admirers included Ronald Reagan, who cited Lindsey’s teachings on Russia as Gog in a speech prior to becoming president.

Lindsey’s eschatology served to provide a Manichean, religious veneer to America’s Cold War against communist Russia. It conveniently serviced Washington’s geopolitical ends, as well as casting all of Israel’s Arab opponents as agents of sinister supernatural forces. America and Israel were the Sons of Light, while their adversaries were the Sons of Darkness. As such, Protestant fundamentalists found ample theological justification to support Euro-Atlantic elites’ drive for global hegemony. Indeed, the late American intellectual Gore Vidal whimsically observed that the practical result of this Dispensationalist theology was a “military buildup that can never, ever cease until we have done battle for the Lord.”

Blood moons, everyone! Have you blessed Israel enough to escape tribulation?

With his end-of-the world predictions long unfulfilled, Hal Lindsey has long since faded into relative obscurity, yet others have ambitiously taken up his mantle. Among the most prominent of the current crop of evangelical Christian Zionists stands John Hagee, the pastor of a Texas mega-church and founder of the lobbying group Christians United for Israel. His theological platform is based not only on uncritical, unwavering support for the nation-state of Israel, but a belief that at some point in the near future Russia, in an alliance with several Islamic countries, particularly Iran, will attack Israel, only to be defeated by God’s divine intervention.

Unfortunately, Hagee isn’t some irrelevant firebrand country pastor. He is a man with deep connections to the Republican Party faction of the ruling establishment. Republican presidential candidates seek out his endorsement, and he has been honored by the Israel lobby for his vocal advocacy for Zionism. But Hagee goes further than mere pro-Israel sermonizing; he also uses his pulpit and political connections to push for a belligerent US position against any and all of Israel’s enemies, again, with a special emphasis on Iran, against which he advocates a preemptive military strike. He claims this confrontation is a necessary precondition that “will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ.”

Standing behind or perhaps next to John Hagee is the billionaire casino mogul and heavyweight fundraiser for Zionist causes, Sheldon Adelson. Adelson uses his vast wealth not simply in the American Jewish community, but consistently rewards Republican politicians for screamingly hawkish pro-Israel, bomb-Iran posturing. He is also an admitted pro-abortion social liberal, which makes Hagee’s warm association with him all the more dubious. John Hagee has on numerous occasions intoned against America’s moral degeneracy and warned that God would punish the nation with various natural disasters as a result. Yet that Adelson made his fortune promoting said degeneracy in the casino industry is irrelevant to Hagee, since cultish devotion to Israel trumps all other considerations.

John Hagee exploits a variety of Biblical prophecies to push for what amounts to a holy war against Muslim nations. When he writes his books and preaches his sermons, his aim is not spiritual or academic; he clearly desires war against Iran and increased American hostility toward Russia. He also completely distains political self-determination for the Palestinians; he opposes granting them an independent state, dismissing their identity as entirely manufactured. Waxing prophetic for his followers, he even suggested that last year’s Ebola outbreak was punishment on America for Obama allegedly trying to “divide” the land of Israel.

Being an appendage of the Atlanticist establishment, John Hagee is eager to hype war and hatred against America and Israel’s enemies. Absent in his commentary on “blood moons” and Israel’s sacred status is any mention that the very radical Muslim groups he rails against have been fostered by the West and Israel. Nor does he speak up for the millions of Christians displaced and massacred in the wars he has supported. The Christian notion of charity is absent from his worldview.

Cynical geopolitics masked as end-times prophecy is far from restricted to Hagee’s church congregation and a few offices in Congress. It is distilled and widely promoted by prominent American conservative outlets. Among its most prominent cheerleaders is the odd Dispensationalist-Mormon hybrid Glenn Beck, embraced by Dispensationalist Protestants despite his Mormon beliefs. Beck has allowed Hagee, who he describes as “one of the bravest guys I know,” and other pro-war Dispensationalists such as Joel Rosenberg, onto his TV program to espouse all sorts of anti-Iranian and anti-Russian sentiments.

Glenn Beck uses his program to regularly accuse Iran of trying to unleash apocalyptic chaos to usher in their Twelfth Imam, a messianic figure in Shiite Islamic eschatology that Beck associates with the Antichrist. But Beck is not content to project the nihilistic apocalyptic fantasies of his cohorts onto Iran; as of late, he has set his sights on Russia.

Like Hal Lindsey and John Hagee, Beck has posited Russia, along with China, as being “the alliance of Gog and Magog.” Beck, childishly babbling and crying his way through his pseudo-history presentations, also never misses a chance to suggest that Russian president Vladimir Putin is a new Hitler seeking to carry out a thousand year old plan for Russian fascist domination.

More recently, the buffoonish Beck has taken to the airwaves to warn about the Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, denouncing him as one of the “most dangerous human beings on the planet,” despite the fact that Mr. Dugin holds no political power and has only a minor influence on the Kremlin. In Beck’s often-incoherent apocalyptic worldview, Russia is irredeemably evil, the perpetual foe of America and the West. Naturally, no mention is made of the Washington’s overthrow of Russia-friendly governments in the Ukraine and elsewhere with the goal of establishing Euro-Atlantic hegemony. Beck is unable, or unwilling, to move beyond his petty, self-serving cartoonish thinking.

Clearly a serious man: Glenn Beck, American talk-media kingpin. 

To be fair, not all evangelical commentators cast Russia in this sinister role. The up-and-coming author Joel Richardson finds no central role for Russia in his scheme of the End Times. Rather, his villains are almost entirely the Muslim nation states of the Middle East, particularly Turkey and Iran. He proposes the notion of the “Islamic Antichrist,” a Muslim dictator that will unite Muslims and lead a war against Israel and unleash a mass persecution of Christians and Jews (he is Glenn Beck’s source for this idea). He offers the suggestion that the “Caliphate” of the terrorist ISIS faction is a “harbinger” of this predicted event.

To be just to Mr. Richardson, he has spoken out against American military intervention against Bashar Assad in Syria. But the real world implications of his ultra-apocalyptic theology perpetuate the dialectical narrative of a necessarily violent clash between the West (and Israel) and the Islamic world. His depiction of ISIS’s pseudo-Caliphate as the forerunner of the reign of the Muslim Antichrist betrays a lack of understanding or interest in the origins of the jihadist group. That ISIS and other radical Islamic sects are able to proliferate due to long-standing covert Western support is never addressed. ISIS isn’t in the driver’s seat, as it were, but is rather a pawn, if an often unruly one, in other powers’ geopolitical gambits. The situation is only evaluated from Mr. Richardson’s narrow theological disposition, and whether intentionally or not, he reinforces the operative clash-of-civilizations template of globalist elites.

Christians seeking to understand Biblical prophecies and relating them to current events is obviously an ancient tradition, shared by Christians in both the West and the East. Taken in themselves, these various aforementioned eschatological interpretations could be dismissed as harmless musing, perhaps less gifted imitations of Vladimir Solovyov’s “A Short Tale of the Antichrist.” After all, the great Solovyov depicted in his story an aggressive Japanese-lead pan-Asian army that assaulted and conquered Russia and Europe as a precursor to the advent of the Antichrist. (He even predicted the return of the Jews to Palestine.) Yet Solovyov understood, as St. Paul said, that we see through the glass darkly, and never thought to present his parable as a literal description of future events. Nor was he interested in perpetuating the dialectical manipulations of certain power factions.

In the theological view of Lindsey, Hagee, Beck and their fellow travelers, the Iranians, Russians, and Palestinians aren’t viewed as actual human personalities. They aren’t seen as people bearing the divine image of God, however imperfectly (much like the rest of us). Instead, they are reduced to little more than Satan’s hordes, predestined as cannon fodder for the Apocalypse. Whether by delusion or naked cynicism, “Christian Zionists” proclaim a theology of de-humanization.

The Russian philosopher Nicolas Berdyaev in his book The Fate of Man in the Modern World commented on this trend among certain Protestant thinkers who see in the world “only sin and powerlessness.” And that while they still believe in God, it is a deity “absolutely transcendent, separated by an abyss from the world and from man.” In this theology, the “image of God in man is shattered.”

Berdyaev’s analysis describes well the fruits of wedding Dispensationalist eschatology to Atlanticist geopolitics. Such grand distortions deprive the image of God to Russians, Iranians, or other villains de jure, casting them only as evil and depraved instruments of infernal powers. They are not only denied the divine image, but the freedom and human agency that corresponds to the spiritual personality. And while a few individuals among them might be “saved,” according to this formula, the collective peoples of Russia, Iran, and other Muslim nations are primarily destined to be hurled into hellfire after they serve their purpose on the cosmic stage. Only the few elect who donated sufficient funds to John Hagee’s King-Kong megachurch will be “raptured” out of tribulation unto the place of the righteous.

 Now that we’ve nuked Russia and Iran, it’s time to ascend to our reward!

The German philosopher Josef Pieper, a devout Christian, reminded us:

"…prophecy certainly speaks about coming events, about a future that cannot be calculated in advance by any speculative technique, but it does not straightforwardly describe what is to happen. One cannot read prophecy like a 'wanted person' notice in which something previously unknown is made recognizable and identified by name, so that one could keep it in mind like a detailed image of a sought object and use it to make the future 'present.'"
This is wisdom that has been forgotten, or deliberately ignored, by the end-times hucksters. Instead of humility, they offer their flock perverted hope for Armageddon, despair, and global conflict (which they eagerly incite). The real war and conflict isn’t ultimately between America and Russia or Israel and Iran. As Fyodor Dostoevsky and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn taught with such profundity, the battle line between God and the Devil, good and evil, runs through the heart of every man.

The Savior warned us that there would come false prophets and teachers appearing as sheep, but inwardly ravenous wolves, and to be ever mindful of their works. What is to be said of those whose fruits are greed, lust for power, warmongering, and the de-humanization of their fellow man? Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

We must look beyond the doom-speculating despair and cynical political maneuvering of the Dispensationalist carnival barkers, and affirm supernatural hope. “In this world you will have many tribulations,” Christ told us, “but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world.”

Christianity & European Identity

via Counter-Currents

Saint George and the Dragon,
Stockholm Cathedral
Author’s Note: The following text is my opening statement for a debate with Jonas de Geer on Christianity and European revival held in Stockholm, Sweden, on Saturday, April 18, 2015. My subsequent statements were extemporaneous. If the debate was recorded, I will make it available on Counter-Currents.

What is the relationship of Christianity and European identity? I do not say “Western Civilization,” because I wish to speak of the whole of Europe, East and West, and the whole of European history and prehistory, not just the civilized bits.

There are two perspectives we can take on this question. One looks back at history. The other looks forward to the future.

Looking back at history, we see that Christianity played an important role in Europe for more than 1700 years. It might have been otherwise. Many wish it were otherwise. It might be different in the future. But even if there comes a day in which Europe is no longer Christian, there will never come a day when Europe has never been Christian. In that sense, Christianity will always be part of European identity. Just as pre-Christian religions and cultures stretching all the way back to the last Ice Age will also always be part of European identity.

But although there was a time when Europe was Christian, Christianity was never European. I am not referring to the Jewish origins of Christianity, although that should never be forgotten. From the start, though, Christianity was as Hellenic as it was Jewish. Moreover, it defined itself in contradistinction to Judaism, just as Judaism has defined itself in opposition to Christianity.

What makes Christianity essentially non-European are the doctrines it shares with the ancient Greeks and Romans, and not with the Jews, namely the idea that a universal truth is the foundation of a universal community; if Christianity is true for all men, then it is a universal religion, not an ethnic religion. Because of its nature as a universal religion, Christianity is not tied to any particular race or people. Christendom is not and never has been co-extensive with Europe. European folk believed in Christianity, but Christianity was never a European folk religion. Many Europeans believe in the cause of Christianity, but Christianity has never believed in the cause of Europe. For the Christian cause is the salvation of all mankind.

Defenders of both Europe and Christianity point to the fact that, in the past, the Church supported the defense of Europe from Islam. But the Church was defending Europe only incidentally. What she was really defending was Christendom, which at the time was centered in Europe, but even then extended into Ethiopia, the Middle East, and as far away as China. And the Church has always been willing to shed European blood to defend and extend Christendom, from the Crusades to liberate the Holy Land on to centuries of global missionary work that continues to this day. Far from being an example of the harmony of Christianity and the ethnic-genetic interests of Europeans, the Crusades are an example of how the Church led Europeans to shed their blood to recoup lost Christian territories in the Middle East.

Let us now look to the future. If present trends are not reversed, European man will cease to exist. I do not fear for the artifacts of European civilization, since Bach and Rembrandt would continue to be prized by Jews and Orientals. I fear for the race that created these glories, and can create new glories. Our race is facing simple biological extinction due to below-replacement fertility, miscegenation, and the loss of our homelands to non-white invaders. If European man is to survive, we must exclude all non-whites from our homelands and adopt policies that cause our birthrates to rise, particularly the birthrates of the genetically best-endowed. In short, we need White Nationalism with pro-natal policies, preferably eugenic ones.

Is Christianity likely to help or to hinder White Nationalists in preventing the biological extinction of our race? To answer this question, we must first look at the actual behavior of the existing churches. All of the mainstream Christian denominations are opposed to White Nationalist policies. Instead, they provide intellectual and institutional support for ongoing white dispossession that is at least on a par with the support of the organized Jewish community, their senior partner in crime. Regardless of the views we may hold about “true” Christian teaching, if the white race is to be saved, we will have to fight the existing churches every step of the way.

Naturally, this battle will be aided if we have sympathizers inside the churches. All too often, White Nationalists who are also Christians spend their time battling against non-Christians in our ranks rather than against anti-whites in their churches. To prove that their White Nationalism is in good faith, they must instead take the battle to the churches. I wish them the best, but I also caution them. Political entryism within the churches will be no easy matter, since the churches were long ago subverted in just this manner, and the existing clergy are Old Masters in that particular black art. They will see you coming.

The battle within the churches will be aided if White Nationalists can find resources from the Bible and the traditions of the Church that support rather than oppose ethnonationalist politics. I have no doubt that such resources exist. Mobilizing them is an important metapolitical project, and it will be credible only if carried out by believers.

However, the battle within the Church is not likely to be successful unless our movement makes progress in the larger social realm, for the simple reason that the Church follows secular opinion rather than leads it. The church has a long history of supple accommodation to secular power, simply because its kingdom is not of this world. Its ultimate goal is the salvation of the soul. Thus, if White Nationalism achieves political power, the churches will hunt for Biblical precedents for our policies and reinterpret, downplay, or ignore contrary tendencies. The Church knows how to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Our job is to become Caesar.

Many defenders of Christianity argue that societies and individuals need religion, and they recommend Christianity simply because of its illustrious past and the fact that it is still here. Of course, this argument is somewhat premature, because the white race first has to survive before we can worry about how we might best organize a future white society.

Furthermore, in the last century, Christianity has been dramatically declining in Europe. Indeed, I have argued in New Right vs. Old Right (here and here) that for three centuries now, liberalism, not Christianity, has been the de facto civil religion of Europe. I see no reason to believe that Christianity will be more significant in the future than it is at present. It may revive; it may continue to decline; it may persist in diminished form; or it may cease to exist altogether.

Thus the mere fact that Christianity is here does not recommend it, if we are choosing a religion based merely on social utility. Indeed, if that is our primary concern, I have argued that we would be better served by trying to reform liberalism in a race-realist, non-individualist direction, since liberalism dominates everything today, even Christianity itself.

European Christianity will have a future only if European man has a future. But the Church is at best indifferent to white survival, and today it is actively working against it. Thus my recommendation to White Nationalists, Christian and non-Christian, is to focus primarily on white survival, which requires that we be more concerned with battling the churches than preserving them. The Christians among us must be White Nationalists among them. They must be our fifth column, doing whatever is possible to weaken the Church’s opposition to us. They need not fear for the Church, which will survive even if whites do not. God will take care of His Church, but whites must take care of ourselves.

Stacey Eden Is an Attention Whore

via Occident Invicta

The intrepid social justice warrior herself
Stacey Eden is a young Australian woman from Sydney who recently defended a Muslim couple that were verbally accosted by a middle aged woman on a train. The woman accused Muslims in general for the atrocities of ISIS and directed her ire at the hapless couple. Stacey Eden sat there for around 10 minutes listening to the conversation before intervening on the couple’s behalf; but not before hitting the record button that captured her heroic intervention. According to the BBC: “Stacey Eden’s Facebook page got an enormous surge of interest after she posted a video of herself defending a Muslim couple“.


This brings us to the obvious conclusion that Stacey Eden is an attention whore. Had she merely intervened on the couple’s behalf without submitting a recording of her “heroism” she would perhaps qualify as a decent person. This was obviously not the case as validation was her underlying motive. The online social media community burst into applause and the leftist media hoisted her on their shoulders for the world to admire. What more could a mediocre unaccomplished young woman want? The Facebook community has lavished her with accolades such as “decent” and “brave”.

Let’s be honest – Stacey is not brave. She picked the most politically correct course of action which is endorsed by Western elites and the mainstream media. Had she tried defending Christians in Pakistan she would have eaten more lead than Salman Taseer. Ironically, it is the middle aged woman that is the brave one in this incident. I am not defending her gross lapse in etiquette but she chose to risk social ostracism in order to speak her mind. I do not think that accosting random people in public spaces is civilized behavior but Eden is no saint either; she seeks to profit by putting her piety on display. Social justice warriors are modern day pharisees and Cultural Marxism is their Mishnah.

Why do Anglosphere women so wholeheartedly embrace cultural marxism (beyond opportunism)? Let us examine the matter further.

The inverted conservatism of Western Women

Those that possess even a basic grasp of history know that women have been conservative throughout history to the point of defending the excesses of their menfolk. As I’ve stated on numerous occasions, Indian women frequently participate in honour killings. Gujarati Hindu women have also, as noted by Aakar Patel, defended the atrocities committed against Gujarati muslims during the 2002 riots. Japanese women also possess a strong nationalist streak which sometimes translates into xenophobic anti-Korean sentiments. These are some extreme examples but women in non western countries do not easily turn their backs on their cultures and traditions. Anglo women are also conservative in their own right – they conserve liberalism.

Liberal thought has entrenched itself so deeply into modern Western culture that it is this liberal culture that Anglo-sphere women are conserving. If traditional conservatives were to somehow wrest control away from our current traitorous elites, women would go back to defending “racism” and “homophobia” within a generation. Matt Forney is essentially correct when he argues that female participation in socio/cultural movements and revolutions is largely irrelevant as women tend to sleep with whoever is in power. However, what Forney does not note is that women are still the keepers of culture and civilization. Men may invent a cuisine but it is housewives that preserve that cuisine over generations. Women’s herd mentality and innate desire for social acceptance are suited perfectly to this task.

From antiquity to modernity women have used shame to enforce social compliance and minimize deviant behaviour within their respective groups. A powerful example of female shaming that comes to my mind is the battle of Uhud fought in 625 AD. The Meccan Quresh tribe were eager to avenge their earlier military defeat at the hands of Muhammad and even their women accompanied them on this particular campaign. According to al-islam.org:
“Also accompanying the army, was a band of warlike women. Their duty was to wage “psychological warfare” against the Muslims by reading poetry and by singing amatory songs to spur the courage and the will-to-fight of the soldiers.
They knew that nothing held such terror for the Arabs as the jibes of women for cowardice, and they also knew that nothing was so efficacious to turn them into utterly reckless fighters as the promise of physical love. These amazons included the wives of Abu Sufyan and Amr bin Aas, and the sister of Khalid bin Walid.”
Not only were the Meccans victorious at Uhud, they inflicted the most devastating military defeat of Muhammad’s prophetic career.  Such is the power of female shaming. Similar incidents occurred in Britain in 1915:
Chiefly a phenomenon of Britain, white feathers were typically handed over by young women to men out of uniform during wartime, the implication being that the man concerned was a ‘shirker’ or a coward.
When we put female shaming in its historical context, the current trends of social media witch-hunts begin to make sense. From Adria Richards to Brendan Eich, the bands of women that initiate twitter mobs and hound politically incorrect “deviants” are only doing what comes naturally to them: conserving the social order. It just so happens that this social order is liberal. Make no mistake, it is men like the Fords and Rockefellers that created feminism and men (like Theodor Adorno) that spawned Cultural Marxism. Our elites have subverted and perverted Western culture (to further their own political/economic ends) and women are merely conserving this degenerate culture.

It is imperative for the alternative right and manosphere to correctly identify our enemies and stop assigning a disproportionate amount of blame on women for our cultural decline.

The Silence of Greville Janner, Part 1

via The Occidental Observer

Lord Greville Janner
If Britain’s leading law officer thought she was putting an unfortunate episode to rest when she tried to quietly drop her most difficult case then she was in for a rude shock — people are in no mood to let the child rape charges against Lord Greville Janner go unanswered.

The explosion of outrage at this inexplicable decision has ensured that, for once, it will not go unchallenged. The injustice is too overwhelming, the double standard too glaring and the incompetence is too blatant.

Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecution, admitted that there was evidence to charge the former President of the British Board of Jewish Deputies  on 22 counts of indecent assault and buggery over decades dating back to 1969 but that her department had botched the case. She said dementia — diagnosed by four doctors — meant that a fair trial could not go ahead.

The scale of the — alleged — depravity takes the breath away. It is said that Janner was at the center of an organised child sex ring that passed around  dozens of children from council care homes. And that he used his position as a prominent politician to give him indemnity.

Ms Saunders has achieved something she cannot have predicted — she has united a whole range of voices against her. They include the Home Secretary, the investigating police force, the police and crime commissioner and even her own immediate predecessor.  That is not including the voices of the victims.

(It should be pointed out that one noticeable exception to this chorus of condemnation is Allan Green, who is also Jewish, and was the Director of Public Prosecutions when Janner was first investigated in 1991. He has chosen not to comment on the matter.)

Readers of the Occidental Observer will be interested in the ethnic dimension to this whole tale and that is fascinating, but first we must set out the background and a good place to start is with the Director of Public Prosecutions herself, a no-nonsense Scottish feminist called Alison Saunders.

From the beginning of her tenure she has had an unswerving goal of increasing the numbers of convictions of men for sex offences and has not been too fussy about how she goes about it. She wants the law changed so that future rape suspects will have to prove a victim said yes.

Her office had already been enthusiastically behind a police sweep called “Operation Yewtree” in which White male suspects, many from the world of show business, have been prosecuted for offences from decades ago. The most lurid accusations centred on a DJ called Jimmy Savile who was conveniently deceased. But other entertainers ended up in prison.

At the same time there has been a slew of stories about paedophile sex rings in high places. Victims have come forward with serious accusations about senior politicians such as Liberal Democrat Cyril Smith and Leon Brittan, a former Conservative — and Jewish — Home Secretary. Like Savile, both are also deceased.

So that is the background, and it is here that the law of unintended consequences kicks in. For in this new climate, victims found themselves being listened to. And as new accusations triggered new investigations, it has inadvertently brought others back to life. This is where we return to Greville Janner.

As with Jimmy Savile, rumours had abounded about Janner for years but as with Savile, he seemed so well connected as to be untouchable. Janner’s alleged role first emerged more than two decades ago, during the 1991 trial of a director of a children’s home in Leicestershire called Frank Beck.

During the trial, Beck made a sensational accusation. He said “One child has been buggered and abused for two solid years by Greville Janner.” Another witness also told the court that Janner “regularly sodomised” him when he was in care, aged 13.

Up till then the Leicestershire MP was held to be above reproach. He was a married father of three, a pillar of both Anglo-Jewish life and the Labour Party. He was a past president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, vice president of the World Jewish Congress. He was also president of the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism, and chaired the All-Party Britain-Israel Parliamentary Group.

Lord Janner (right) with David Cameron
Lord Janner (right) with David Cameron

A product of one of Britain’s finest private schools Janner went to Trinity Hall, Cambridge and was elected President of the Union.  He attended Harvard Law School before effectively inheriting his father’s Labour constituency in Leicester. The crowning achievement of his career was the founding of the Holocaust Educational Trust for which he was ennobled by Tony Blair in 1997.

However the evidence was persuasive. A letter was shown to the jury that was sent from Janner to the boy. The boy was able to describe Janner’s home, the bedrooms they shared and personal details of Janner’s habits. In addition another boy told the court that Janner, a member of the Magic Circle, would groom boys who had been impressed by his magic tricks.

The accusations were dismissed and Janner was welcome back to Parliament to huge cheers from his parliamentary colleagues.

But in today’s climate of more scrutiny for sex abuse allegations, it has now emerged that two investigations in 1991 and again in 2007 into Janner were mysteriously dropped. The former Chief Constable of Derbyshire police, an investigating detective in Leicester at the time, told The Times newspaper that that there had been “credible evidence” against the MP but the case had been stopped on the orders of higher ups.

When the prosecutor decided that Janner should not be prosecuted because in 2009 he had been diagnosed with dementia, it seemed to go against not only precedent but the facts of the matter.

It would certainly be interesting to know when Janner’s diminution of faculties set in.  He looked fine when he made a long complicated speech in the Knesset a year after his diagnosis, and has since voted 210 times and spoken eight times in the in the House of Lords making a lengthy speech there — about Israel — in late 2013.

In fact this might be his undoing. Campaigners are reportedly demanding full details of Lord Janner’s recent written letter to the House of Lords indicating he did not wish to step down as a serving peer.

“I don’t see how you can sign a document relating to membership of the House of Lords if you have dementia,” said one MP.

Not everyone believes the accusations against Lord Jenner.  His own family stand loyally by him. Fellow barristers such as Jonathan Caplan QC have written to The Times questioning his treatment, and his own community have stuck by him. He still makes  charity appearances for Jewish causes.

Yet in ensuring that Janner is not prosecuted, the Director of Public Prosecutions seems determined to exercise a degree of fastidiousness that has been noticeably lacking in her anti-rape crusade.

There are also many precedents — a man was convicted in his absence in Exeter in 2010 of abusing six young girls. Like Lord Janner the defendant was suffering from advanced dementia.

It is also interesting here to compare the parallels with the case of Jewish billionaire  and child sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein and the accusations against Alan Dershowitz. One wonders if that case too will ever come before a jury.

The evidence against Janner seems at least as strong as that against Savile — so why do we assume Savile was guilty and Janner is innocent.

Frank Beck, who was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment for essentially the same crimes that Janner is accused of, died three years after the verdicts. Some of the alleged victims have died or disappeared.

For Lord Janner the whole affair has cast a shadow over a life filled with achievement on behalf of the Jewish community. No-one has worked harder in seeking financial restitution for Holocaust victims. And it is his creation of the moneyspinning Holocaust Educational Trust that has earned him the everlasting gratitude of his community.

Two years ago and four years after the dementia diagnosis he was fit enough to travel to Israel to receive his ultimate accolade from his people — the opening of a kindergarten named after him, The ceremony was attended by the British Ambassador.

Lord Janner once said in respect of accused Nazi war criminals that there are some crimes so horrendous that the passage of time can do nothing to diminish them. So when a 90-year-old man said to be a former concentration camp guard called John Demjanuck was sentenced to life, Lord Janner expressed grim satisfaction.

Demjanuck was convicted on the testimony of 11 concentration camp survivors who identified him after 70 years. Surely the testimony of the remaining 20 of Janner’s — alleged — victims, after 20 years, are just as credible.

Perhaps the last words should go to an  alleged victim. This young man told the Sunday Mirror “They say he can’t stand trial because he can’t defend himself and he will not understand what is happening. As  children, we could not defend ourselves and did not understand what was happening. It did not stop us from being abused.”

Lewis Carroll: Another Brilliant Man of History Who Hated the Jews

via Renegade Tribune

“No Jews are honest.” – Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)
An article recently published in the Jewish Daily Forward reviews a new book that debunks the commonly held myth that Lewis Carroll, author of the classic Alice in Wonderland, was a secret pedophile.

It also reveals that Lewis Carroll was a righteous Jew-hater (by spending the whole article whining about that fact).

Alice in Anti-Semitic Land:
A student of Bertrand Russell, Copi notes that readers of Carroll’s logical examples “may be put off by… the varied remarks about Jews: that they are sarcastic, either hunchbacked or misers, obsequious unless very young, squinting, dishonest, look like goats, have beards a yard long and hooked noses.”
To establish a logical premise, Carroll repeatedly offers a phrase such as “All Juwes [sic] are greedy.” In “Symbolic Logic” he proffers the following examples, among many: “No Gentiles have hooked noses”; “No Jew is ever a bad hand at a bargain”; “There are no Jews in the house”; “No Gentiles have beards a yard long”; and “No Jews are honest.”
It also reveals (surprise, surprise) that the rumor that Carroll was a pedophile was started by a Jewish psychoanalyst:
Yet some joy was expressed by an English Jewish writer, Anthony M. E. Goldschmidt, in a 1933 satirical article, “Alice in Wonderland Psycho-Analysed” which Wakeling charges with playing a role in subsequent typing of Carroll as a pedophile. Goldschmidt was a childhood friend of the playwright Terence Rattigan, with whom he co-authored the 1938 anti-Nazi farce “Follow My Leader.”
I’m not so sure if Goldschmidt’s article was meant to be “satirical” as the Forward claims though. It was certainly taken seriously by many authors who came after him, many of whom were Jews, of course. The book that is said to be the “definitive, scholarly work” on Carroll, Lewis Carroll: A Biography, was written by a Jew named Morton N. Cohen, and is most responsible for spreading the filthy pedophile rumor through its popularity.

Psychoanalysis is a ridiculous Jewish pseudo-science of mind-boggling proportions. Here is an excerpt of an article which explains Goldschmidt’s deranged reasoning behind his diagnosing Carroll as a sex pervert:
His theory was that the opening section of Wonderland was a kind of cryptic message from Lewis Carroll’s subconscious. The incidents were signs and symbols that could be decoded in the face of modern psychoanalytical understanding, to reveal the inner workings of the author’s mind.
The fall down the rabbit hole was a symbol of sexual penetration, the doors surrounding the hallway represented female genitalia. In selecting the little door in preference to the big, Alice (or rather Dodgson in the guise of Alice), was choosing to copulate with a female child instead of an adult woman. Ergo, said Goldschmidt, he was a paedophile.
Jews are collectively criminally insane and should be either locked up in institutions or shipped back to the desert from whence they came. Then maybe they can have fun fighting to the death with their equally ridiculous Semitic cousins and leave us and the memories of our great ancestors the hell alone.

The Progress Awakens

via Radix

The next trailer for the upcoming Star Wars movie came out a couple days ago. Trigger warning: #grrlpower #ChristianSithLord #interracialporno. If you haven’t seen it yet, head over to YouTube and take a look. You’ve been warned.

It starts out innocuous enough, with an old Luke Skywalker telling someone, presumably either his or Leia’s child, of the Skywalker line’s strong connection to the Force. We also see a ruined Darth Vader mask. So far, I’m cool with this. There’s nothing like the passing of power from the father to the son, and a large part of Star Wars’ success came from repackaging mythological archetypes into a modern movie that the audience could relate to.

But. . .there’s a problem. Big one. Later on in the trailer we see a White woman and a Black Stormtrooper (henceforth referred to as the Blooper) doing action-y things. Hollywood being Hollywood, these two are going to be the main characters. So, either the narrative has gotten so powerful that Leia and Han decided to adopt some poor child from Africa a shitty war torn alien hellhole instead of continuing the Jedi line... (Midi-chlorean inheritance, is like, spiritual dude! Nothing to do with blood…)

 ...Or our next great hero(ine) is a White woman, who is inevitably going to fall in love with the Blooper. #interracialporno indeed. Now, I could be wrong but I doubt it. Could the next Star Wars movie be anything but an SJW Progress Orgy?

I know that I’m preaching to the choir here (what feminists would call a “Safe Space”), so it’s naturally assumed that the reader will also share my aversion to having a female heroine, but for the sake of it, let’s examine why that’s a bad thing. After all, despite the rectitude of our gut revulsion, it’s important to be able to vocalize what about a female heroine is so bad. And in order to do that, we’ve got to break out the Campbell and Jung

Stories are not just things we make up, at least good stories aren’t. They allow us to explain ourselves to ourselves. Our consciousness is like oil slicked over deep water. Underneath that thin veneer of oil is the unconscious mind, a dark, deep place from which our motivations, desires, and creative impulses arise. It wouldn’t be an understatement to say that it is linked directly to God. The unconscious mind cannot speak to us directly, but only through symbols which must then be interpreted by the conscious mind.

These symbols are often representative of archetypes. These are fundamental contents of the unconscious that arise, again and again, in myth and legend. They are things like birth, death, rebirth, magic, the hero, God, the demon...etc. According to Jung:

“There are as many archetypes as there are typical situations in life. Endless repetition has engraved these experiences into our psychic constitution, not in the form of images filled with content, but at first only as forms without content, representing merely the possibility of a certain type of perception and action.” (42)

These archetypes can be and are expressed through stories, and come up endlessly in different mythologies from extremely disparate cultures. And, despite the cultural distance, these stories still speak to us. The readers here would be pleasantly surprised to read a collection of Yoruba legends, and to feel how deeply they resonate within even the most hardened race realist. At the same time, it’s important to keep in mind that these archetypes draw from the culture in which they are born. For that reason, Loki, the Norse trickster, is much dearer to my heart than Eshu, the Yoruba equivalent. But they are clearly cut from the same cloth.

At this point you may be wondering what this has to do with Star Wars. I’m going to get to that in a minute, but before I do, I need to speak a bit about one of the most important archetypes, the hero’s journey. Joseph Campbell, who famously used Jungian psychology to analyze mythology, coined the idea in his landmark book, The Hero with a Thousand Faces. He spent time breaking down the various aspects of the hero’s journey, but the basics are this: An anonymous orphan with unknown parents and humble beginnings is called to greatness, fights his destiny but eventually accepts his fate. He faces great danger, making friends along the way, connecting with his father, and in the end meets with God and becomes king.

This truncation of mine is an absolute butchery of Campbell’s ideas, and I strongly recommend that you read the book. The main thing to take away from the hero’s journey is that it is about growing up. It’s about the transition from being a boy to being a man. That’s why it’s so powerful and is used in so many different movies, books, comics, etc. That’s why it resonates so strongly with its audience. Because in some form or another, every man has lived this story. It’s just through art that we see it played out more dramatically.

This is why Star Wars was so powerful when it first came out. The modern world, if it lacks anything, lacks a defined mythology. Our myths are no longer being told, and have been expressed only in mealy, pop culture garbage. Star Wars was a myth that the modern mind could understand, and it shook our collective conscious to the core. That’s what happens when you deal in terms the unconscious understands. It’s like splitting atoms.

But when you understand that Star Wars is so powerful because it’s a myth, you can also understand why it cannot have a female protagonist--because women do not go through the hero’s journey. Men and women have different life histories. A manhood is defined by action, by completing the hero’s journey. Women are defined by their bodies. They do not strive for some abstract ideal of “Womanhood” because it simply happens to them.

Think about it, at twelve or so a girl gets her first period. That’s the first step. Over the next few years she grows breasts, undergoes pregnancy. Nurses. Eventually goes through menopause. Womanhood happens. It’s not something that is brought about. The experience of being female is so thoroughly occupying that women are literally incapable of talking about anything else. Incidentally, that is why feminists are so fixated on women’s bodies, #freethenipple, #vaginaknitting, etc. Their minds cannot get past navel gazing about the subjective experience of being a woman.

Contrast that with men. Things don’t happen to powerful men. Powerful men happen to the world (insert Chuck Norris joke). Kind of stupid, but you get my point. The hero’s journey, and really the journey for any man, is to somehow change the world. I don’t mean this is an activist sort of way, either. It could be setting up a successful business, or being an effective PUA, whatever. The point is that men are defined by action, whereas women are defined by being women.

That’s why the next Star Wars movie is doomed to be just another movie. A female protagonist is wrong because it profanes the sacred archetype that is the hero’s journey. Men and women are not potato heads. You cannot swap a penis for a pair of breasts and get the same thing. Myths don’t work that way and reality doesn’t work that way. Disney and JJ Abrams can try to push their agenda of political correctness on us, but it can’t work in the long term because it violates the very fundamentals of human experience.

And honestly, how many of you want to watch Luke’s daughter get ploughed by the Blooper?


Hall, Calvin S., and Vernon J. Nordby. A Primer of Jungian Psychology. New York: Taplinger Pub., 1973. Print.

The Nation-State and the Multipolar World

via MotPol

One of the most important points of the Theory of Multipolarity refers to the nation-state. The sovereignty of this structure has already been challenged during the period of ideological support for the two blocs (the “Cold War”) and, in the period of globalization, the issue acquired a much sharper relevance. We see the theorists of globalization also talk about the complete exhaustion of the “nation-states” and about the necessity of transferring them to the “World Government” (F. Fukuyama, before), or about the belief that nation-states have not yet completed their mission and must continue existing for a longer time with the purpose of better preparing their citizens for integration into the “Global Society” (F. Fukuyama, later).

The Theory of Multipolarity demonstrates that nation-states are a Eurocentric and mechanical phenomenon, on a larger scale, “globalist” in their initial stage (the idea of individual identity, normative in the form of civility, prepared the ground for the “civil society” and, correspondingly, for the “global society”). That the whole of world space is currently separated into territories of nation-states is a direct consequence of colonization, imperialism, and the projection of the Western model over all of mankind. Therefore, the nation-state does not carry in itself any self-sufficient value for the Theory of Multipolarity. The thesis of the preservation of nation-states from the perspective of the construction of the Multipolar World Order is only important in the case that, in a pragmatic way, that impedes globalization (and does not contribute to it), and hides in itself a more complicated and prominent social reality. After all, many political units (especially in the Third World) are nation-states simply in a nominal form, and virtually represent diverse forms of traditional societies with more complex systems of identity.

In this case, the position of the defenders of the Multipolar World is completely the opposite of that of the globalists: If a nation-state effectuates the homogenization of society and assists in the atomization of the citizens, that is, implements a profound and real modernization and Westernization, such a nation-state has no importance, being merely a kind of instrument of globalization. That nation-state is not being preserved worthily; it does make any sense in the Multipolarist perspective.

But if a nation-state serves as an exterior support for another social system – a special and original culture, civilization, religion, etc. – it should be supported and preserved while it actualizes its evolution towards a more harmonious structure, within the limits of sociological pluralism in the spirit of Multipolar Theory. The position of the globalists is directly opposite in all things: They appeal to eliminate the idea by which the nation-states serve as an external support of something traditional (such as China, Russia, Iran, etc.) and, conversely, to strengthen the nation-states with pro-Western regimes – South Korea, Georgia, or the countries of Western Europe.

American Renaissance Conference 2015: Seeking the Spirit of Our People

via Counter-Currents

John William Waterhouse, Destiny, 1900
Last Friday my colleague and I flew down to Nashville, rented a car, and drove out to Montgomery Bell State Park to attend the 2015 American Renaissance (AmRen) conference. My colleague, who went to the conference all four times it was held at this scenic venue, commented that making this journey is starting to feel like a ritual for him. Although, I only attended the last three conferences, I tend to agree, and perhaps having steadfast and reliable rituals is a good thing, but a conference concerning our movement should never become too familiar or repetitious. We need growth and development to show that we are alive and thriving.

There were, in fact, a number of indications of growth and development at this year’s conference. In terms of demographics I noticed several differences. For one thing, I heard a rumor that the venue was sold out, which I don’t recall happening previously. Second, while I saw many familiar faces, there were also many new faces, including quite a few young people in their early 20s. Third, compared to past years there seemed to be more women in attendance, which perhaps portends a change in cultural consciousness. Lastly there seemed to be fewer Jews at the conference than in past years as well as a greater openness to discussing the Jewish Question (not necessarily from the podium, mind you). Granted, I am not a seasoned AmRen conference attendee, so my sample size for comparison is relatively small.

The content of the speaker presentations demonstrated a newly emerging consensus regarding the strategies necessary to secure the survival of the white race in America, namely that there will not be a renaissance of America as it once existed. The American system is like a sinking ship. Some might argue it would be the honorable thing to go down with the ship, but white people have not been the captain for some time. We are the victims of a mutiny. So perhaps it is best to salvage what we can and start building a life raft. This was the attitude that I sensed, and of course there was some push back from more conservative types. However, my purpose in going to the conference was not to argue over possible future scenarios, but rather to realign my compass so as to better search for dry land. In this regard, much of what I heard from both the speakers and the conferees has been educational to say the least.

In terms of oratorical skill, including both thematic organization and clear delivery, I rate the speeches given by Richard Spencer and Sam Dickson as the best. Both were conceptual in nature and dealt with the psychology of our enemy but examined it from different angles. Mr. Spencer was the second speaker on Saturday morning. His talk was entitled “Why Do They Hate Us?” and focused on the guilt complex of our own kindred. “Before we have a leftist problem, a black problem, or a Jewish problem,” he said, “we have a white problem.” Our greatest enemies are those who should be our allies but have a pathological aversion to any declaration of positive white identity.

Mr. Spencer traced this pathology back to the emergence of Christian morality, which subverted the Nietzschean “Master morality” of our ancestors. When pressed on this point by some defenders of Christianity during the question and answer session, he conceded that the current problem we face is a post-Christian one. This post-speech addendum perhaps muddled his point which is that our people cannot overcome this guilt complex without addressing the flaws of Christian morality. Spencer was not arguing for abandonment of Christian morality and a return to Master morality, but rather a reconciliation of the best aspects of the two so that we can “rise and greet the dawn with a clear conscience.”

As always, Sam Dickson was the final speaker at the conference. I heard several people comment that his speech, entitled “A Benediction for Heretics” was the best they had ever heard from him, and I must to concur. Sometimes, Mr. Dickson seems to ramble a bit, but this year he was on point. He demonstrated how our enemies claim to be free from ideology yet filter all information they encounter through an ideology of freedom. While freedom is not necessarily bad, once it becomes tied to an ideology that views it as an unquestionably good thing, other goods things, like truth, tend to diminish. Our movement is considered heretical because we question the notion that freedom is the highest good.

I should note that Jared Taylor’s speech, entitled “What Is Wrong With Our Country?” was also superbly delivered. Yet I felt I had heard this same speech from Mr. Taylor before. It included many of the key points he has made in the past. Essentially this: the correlation between race and IQ explains so much about the racial tensions in our society, and those who disagree with us on this point have such irreconcilable differences in their perception of reality that separation is the only logical solution. While I have heard these points before, I never tire of hearing Mr. Taylor speak, and his ideas are worth repeating, especially considering the number of new people in attendance at the conference.

Without question, video blogger RamZPaul delivered the most entertaining speech of the conference on Saturday night after the banquet. It was entitled “The Red Pill,” a reference to the film The Matrix, but was mainly about rat experiments conducted by John B. Calhoun in the 1950s and 1960s. Calhoun observed erratic behavior among rats given the provisions necessary to survive in overpopulated situations. The rats ceased to behave like rats and eventually lost the will to live. RamZPaul discussed how humans have a greater capacity to adapt to such situations, yet we react similarly to rats when our “conceptual space” becomes overpopulated, which is what happens when diverse groups of people with contradictory life ways are forced to associate with one another. Despite the seriousness of the subject matter, his talk was filled with jokes and was incredibly hilarious. He’s like Bill Nye the Science Guy, except he is a Nationalist Guy. Be sure to watch this talk when it is posted on YouTube.

The centerpiece of the conference was a debate on whether white survival can be secured using the system already in place. John Derbyshire and Peter Brimelow argued that it can be, while Richard Spencer and Sam Dickson argued against this possibility. The two sides seemed to be coming from places that did not really touch upon each other’s arguments. I found myself agreeing with Derbyshire and Brimelow that using the system to preserve white survival is certainly possible in theory, but also agreeing with Spencer and Dickson that it is very unlikely. The flaw in the affirmative argument is not just that it relies upon unforeseen alterations in the current trajectory of the system, but also that if such an unforeseen circumstance were to occur, then it would only provide a brief reprieve while leaving the inherently degrading democratic system intact, which would eventually result in a resurgence of the same problems we are facing today.

Mr. Derbyshire made what seemed to be a false choice argument that the only two options are to reform the system by working within it, or to engage in a revolution, which he characterized as necessarily atrocious, likening it to the bloodiest Communist cultural revolutions of the past. Is there really no middle way, a path that, while not entirely bloodless, would also not be remembered as an atrocity by our descendants? There very well could be. It is fruitless to dwell upon the unforeseen possibilities of the future and instead set goals for the present based upon our understanding of how the American democratic system can never lead to a lasting favorable result.

One useful thing Mr. Derbyshire stated to this end is that politics follows culture and not the other way around. So we must focus our efforts on transforming culture. This is the metapolitical strategy. On Sunday morning, before Sam Dickson gave his talk there was a time of remembrance for the late Sam Francis, who passed away ten years ago. A montage of video clips from his AmRen conference speeches was screened. What stuck out to me from these video clips was a single sentence, Sam Francis’ response to a question on how we proceed: “The first thing we need to do is build white racial consciousness.”

No strategy, be it implemented within the system or outside of it will be successful without the building of white racial consciousness. Thus, in terms of usefulness, the two most important presentations at the conference were given by the speakers from Europe, Konstantins Pupurs of the “All For Latvia” party, and Matthew Tait, a former member of the British National Party. Both of these speakers offered practical advice for advancing the idea of positive ethnic identity.

Mr. Pupurs discussed his personal history as a dissident in the Soviet Union, an interesting story, but what was more important was his description of the activities of the All For Latvia party. The party has taken on the task of creating new traditions for the Latvian people. Most notably, they hold a flag rally on Latvian Legion Day, March 16th, when the Soviet assault began against Latvia in 1944. Pupurs stated that this day represents the day when Latvians stood up against their would-be oppressors but is also thought of as the day they lost their independence.

In addition to holidays, All For Latvia educates young people in folkways, specifically song and dance, which have been passed down since before the introduction of Christianity to Latvian culture. These activities are designed to arm young Latvians with a sense of identity to protect them from the introduction of destructive and corrupting globalist influences. As a result, the average age range of the All For Latvia party is between 20 to 40 years old.

Similarly, Mr. Tait, the first speaker of the conference on Saturday morning, described his personal involvement in British politics and the current political scene in the United Kingdom. The story of the BNP’s rise in popularity and steady decline provides important lessons, perhaps the most important of which is that a movement cannot solely be defined by its leader. In this case, Nick Griffin was an irreplaceable figure in the BNP, and because others were kept from flourishing, the party could not sustain itself. At the same time, Tait asserted that “our message is our messenger.” We must have excellent leaders whose skills in conveying the message are appropriately refined.

Mr. Tait has an almost spiritual view of politics. In the beginning of his talk he spoke of how he had seen people inspired by the truth of the nationalist movement become transformed, overcoming obstacles in their personal lives at the behest of a higher sense of purpose. He stated that people are hungry for a national identity and when they feel that it can be rekindled they are willing to give much more than they have. Toward the end of his talk he advised that we reject the complacency of a liberal way of life and think of our movement like we might think of church, meeting at least once a week, twice a week if possible. He advised creating small groups of people who live within an hour from one another to best accomplish this. He likened the spirit of our people to the Holy Spirit that Christians offer themselves to be filled with.

One tradition that has been consistent at all of the AmRen conferences I’ve attended is the Saturday night party held at one of the park villas after the events of the day are over. This is the best time to meet people and gather in a festive kind of fellowship. I went hoping to find out how to make the small localized community groups described by Matthew Tait into a reality. It occurred to me that there were representatives from many well-known nationalist web sites—the primary media outlets of our movement—including American Renaissance, VDare.com, Radix Journal, the Traditionalist Youth Network, The Right Stuff, and I believe there was someone from The Political Cesspool present, although I didn’t speak with him. These media outlets have far larger audiences than those who can make it to an annual conference. Can this larger audience be connected together and formed into groups at the local level?

The answer to this question is still not clear to me. It seems that certain people must act as ambassadors of white identity for their local community. These ambassadors must prove themselves as trustworthy. They must develop systems by which the larger audience of our media outlets can connect to them safely, and as their local community grows they must also find ways to protect the individuals who have joined the cause.

What happens when these local groups meet together? They should explore strategies to expand white racial consciousness, both overtly and covertly. They should create new traditions and bring a sacred seriousness to old traditions. They should support and encourage individuals to surpass their personal flaws. New problems will always arise, but they should find ways to plan for these obstacles and ensure that the group is capable of sustaining itself. They should act according the virtues that we understand as vital in creating a better society, which is to say that they should reject equality and democracy as a part of their procedure and advance aristocratic values to groom their members for leadership.

These are the kinds of ideas that I went to the AmRen conference eager to discuss. For the most part, I do not think my efforts were successful. While I did learn something from the talks and made a number of contacts with people who will be helpful, many other people I spoke with seemed content with their internet-based activism. I spoke to several people involved with web sites who did not seem to understand what I was proposing. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised by this since I am an unseasoned conferee among those who have been involved in the movement for many more years than me. Still, I sense a yearning to go beyond web sites and conferences. It is only a matter of time before this movement actually does.