Jul 13, 2015

Common Interests, Common Problems

via Radix

Author's Note: This is my first published essay, which appeared in the November 2005 issue of Right Now!, a now-defunct magazine that was edited by Derek Turner. Right Now! deserves to be remembered as a great English-language forum for both European nationalists and the “alt Right” (though no one used that term at the time). I was certainly overjoyed to see my byline in its pages.
I wrote the article while spending a very bohemian summer in France and Germany in 2005, just before I entered a Ph.D. program at Duke University. (I thought it would be best to publish “right wing” articles abroad, so as not to alienate my professors.)

Naturally, there are opinions here that I no longer agree with; indeed, there are opinions here that I didn’t quite agree with when I wrote them. It wasn’t so much a case of intellectual evolution as my unwillingness to fully commit to ideas that I clearly knew were true.
That said, there are some constants. My antipathy towards “American conservatism” is one, as well as my eagerness to get beyond both the Euro-/Franco-phobia and “l’anti-americanisme” that characterized the 2000s. My sense, then and now, was that Europe and America were caught in the same downward, nihilistic spiral. America was hardly a “conservative” or “moral” alternative to “decadent Europe” and, indeed, had much to learn from the culture of our common home.

The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America, and Politics without God


George Weigel, Gracewing, Leominster, 2005

On 12 September 2001, the front-page headline of Le Monde famously read “Nous sommes tous americains.” Four years later, such sentiments sound either quaint or ironic, as the Atlantic Ocean seems to have widened considerably since. But did the often painful debate over the war in Iraq really result from the fact that Europe and America have fundamentally parted ways strategically, and even ideologically and culturally? More and more, a wide swath of Americans and Europeans would answer, yes. In many ways, the very publication of The Cube and the Cathedral is an indication of this. The volume is aimed at a wide, educated audience, and is representative of a new le divorce sub-genre of American non-fiction (most of which consists of worthless exercises in France-bashing).

A flashpoint of this debate has been the rather unfortunate terminology set down in Robert Kagan’s Of Paradise and Power (2003): basically, “Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus.” Kagan argues that the “power gap” between America and Europe arises as both a cause and consequence of an “ideological gap.” Put simply, Europe believes that all the world’s problems can be solved by a World Court, economic redistribution, and collective security organisations; America does not. This premise is accepted not only by American Republicans, but also by the blithest of Europhiles (e.g., Mark Leonard, who argues for “the power of weakness”).

George Weigel, an American Roman Catholic theologian and biographer of Pope John Paul II, seems to have been spurred to write The Cube and the Cathedral after most of Western Europe refused to support Operation Iraqi Freedom. But then, unlike his neoconservative colleagues (including Kagan), Weigel has a far more passionate attachment to the continent, and calls up much of his inspiration from Western European and Slavic thinkers. Weigel criticizes contemporary Europe in an effort to inspire them—and America—to reconnect with what he most admires of their shared European past.

Weigel conceives his critique through the architectural metaphors of Paris’s Notre Dame (1260-1345) and La Grande Arche de la Défense (1982-1989), a minimalist cube in the corporate district large enough to contain Notre Dame in its hollow inner sanctum. Weigel first asks, who were the Frenchmen who built the cathedral? What constituted this culture whose central monument emphasized communal worship and the contrasts of stone and glass, support and lightness, unity and hierarchy? Weigel then looks across town, and asks, who are the Parisians who constructed the Grand Arch? What constitutes this culture which builds a “monument to humanrights” as a kindofüber-corporate headquarters? (The Arch was dedicated on the bicentennial of the French Revolution by François Mitterand.)

Weigel’s more central questions are, despite the Grand Arch’s pretensions, which culture would better protect human rights? Which culture would more firmly secure the moral foundations of democracy? The question cuts right to the heart of the modern superstition that it is only after tradition and religion have been abandoned that ethical societies can be forged and individuals inspired to flourish. Of course, Weigel’s architectural metaphor is flawed within the context of the book. For what is “the cube” but a French attempt to outdo American corporate culture? Put another way, what is it about, say, the architectural landscape of Huston, Texas, that leads it to be the stronghold of the “faith-based values,” which Weigel so admires?

This quibble aside, Weigel’s critique is most piquant in his look at Europe’s fundamental failure to create a vital culture on the most basic of levels, as expressed by, in the words of Niall Ferguson, the “greatest sustained reduction in European population since the Black Death.” As of 2004, no western European nation comes close to replacing its population: Germany’s birth rate is 1.3 children per woman; Catholic Italy and Spain, 1.2 and 1.1 respectively; France’s is slightly better by dint of its expanding immigrant population. This decline is both silent and entirely self-inflicted. It might be tempting to blame it all on feminism, self-absorbed consumerism, the welfare-state tax burden, or careerism, but all of these explanations are insufficient. What one witnesses in post-war Europe is a culture that, for all of its undeniable achievements, simply does not believe in its future.

Writers like the American environmentalist, Bill McKibben, cogently argue that a reduction in population is beneficial in that fewer people offers the prospect of smaller communities with lightened ecological impact. But such arguments collapse in the face of the reality that not only do modern economies and social programmes rely on sustained populations, but that, in Weigel’s words, “Demographic vacuums do not remain unfilled.” As of today, 20 million Muslims reside in Europe
most of them having arrived legally. The question must be asked, how European will Europe be when, for example, the majority of teenagers of the coming Dutch generation will be of Middle Eastern ancestry?
Many would dismiss this discussion as “racist,” and claim that these new Europeans will become valued citizens (and there is no reason why this could not be the case). However, Muslim immigrants who entered Europe *en masse *in the second half of the 20th Century have on the whole lacked inclination towards assimilation and espouse little in the way of loyalty towards their host nation. Weigel expresses appropriate alarm at these developments, but then, any kind of real definition of what modern European citizenship should be is seriously lacking, and deserves to be fleshed out here. As citizenship based solely on race is equally impossible and undesirable—as it would exclude Arabs who seriously want to become European—it is all the more important for conservatives to base citizenship on allegiance to a nation. Such distinctions allow the Right to avoid the Scylla and Charybdis of, on the one hand, hateful racism and, on the other, the “citizen of the world” globalarchy expressed by free-marketers, liberals, and Europhiles alike.

In this line, Weigel is certainly justified in excoriating the EU Constitution writers who avoided even facing this problem. Leaving the door open for Turkish EU membership, they instead indulged in a concept of “tolerance,” which amounts to little more than indifference. Could the EU Constitution, which does not acknowledge the continent’s Christian heritage, truly “give an account of why Europeans should be tolerant and civil? Why not?” The point is well made, but the obvious counter-example is the remarkably secular Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution, and, in the end, it is difficult to fully accept that a nation must avow Christian faith to act ethically.

Still, viewed within its proper context, Weigel’s Catholic-tinged notion of a kind of “Christian Union” seems to reveal a crucial historical aspect of the EU overlooked in the current Europhile/Eurosceptic debate. Whatever kinds of reconstructed Trotskyites support the EU now, one must not forget that the devout Catholics Konrad Adenauer and Robert Schumann were two of the most important in envisioning the project. It should thus be less surprising that Pope John Paul II actively supported Poland’s membership of the EU. For them, a European union, on a very basic level, represented a new Christendom—certainly a Christendom in tune with secular modernity, but a Christendom nonetheless. The current state of the EU is all the more depressing in that such sentiments are now completely absent in the way that “Europe” is conceived by supporters and detractors alike.

Unfortunately, Weigel is less insightful in his discussions of 20th Century European culture and current foreign affairs. In Weigel’s analysis, Europe’s catastrophes arose from a deep and lasting cultural breakdown at the gateway to the 20th Century:
World War I, the Great War, was the product of a crisis of civilizational morality, a failure of moral reason in a culture that had given the world the very concept of moral reason.
The source of this crisis is, for Weigel, intellectual, and consists of the usual suspects: Comte’s positivism, Feurbach’s and Marx’s messianic socialism, and Nietzsche’s embrace of “the will to power.” The rest was inevitable.

This is not a particularly original argument and amounts to a gross oversimplification of late 19th Century thought, particularly in the case of Nietzsche. But even if one were to grant the point, Weigel’s true problem is his complementary claim—sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit—that America has represented a moral alternative. Weigel certainly does not deny the influence of Nietzsche, Marx & co in American life, but still wants to imagine that America has trodden a different, more dignified path into modernity.

One could take issue with Weigel on a variety of fronts—for example, the appalling death of civility in America represented by Wal-Mart, mega-churches, and uncentered suburban sprawl. But this is also a weak argument on the political level as well. It is certainly easy to bemoan Europe’s fraction into extremist ‘isms’ in the first half of the 20th Century. But it is more difficult— and thus all the more pertinent—to look critically at militant universalism in American foreign policy stretching across the entire century, what Claes G. Ryn (a Catholic political scientist more perceptive than Weigel) has called, “America the virtuous.” That is, if one is to argue that the First World War resulted from Europe’s spiritual tragedy, then one must be equally skeptical an American president, Woodrow Wilson, who claimed that America’s national interest lay in “a war to make the world safe for democracy.”

But Weigel reduces the Catholic tradition of “just war” theory to a moral obligation and licence to save the world at gunpoint (although in op-eds, he uses the conservative-sounding language of “advancing the cause of world order”). But he fails both to reveal American interventionism’s ethical foundations, as well as to offer any compelling reasons why Europeans should support the noble cause. In the end, Wilson’s defeat of the German Empire ensured the sustainability of Bolshevism just as Bush’s overthrow of Iraq has galvanized Islamic violence. A proper understanding of America’s “just wars” overturns most of Weigel’s oppositions. Today, President Bush’s most fervent supporters are evangelical Christians, groups who claim to be not only the most conservative, religious, “real” Americans, but hold that it is the military’s duty to expand universal values abroad. America has her own form of decadence, but it is something that cannot be measured by church attendance as Weigel would like.
Weigel’s book was published before the seismic shift in European politics following the non vote in France and the Netherlands rejection of the EU Constitution. Interestingly, the No “coalition’”in both countries included not only the nationalist Right but, perhaps to an even greater extent, a faction of the socialist Left. In turn, in Germany, it is not just the right-wing Junge Freiheit *that warns of “the dictatorship of the bureaucrats,” but the Social Democratic *Der Spiegel. Furthermore, while the current state of the American two-party system offers no choice for the real Right, in Europe, this is increasingly not the case. And yet Weigel’s deprecation of Europe and sanctification of American “conservatives” offers no space to consider these developments.

Despite these criticisms, as a popular book that brings questions of philosophy and national character pressingly to the fore, *The Cube and the Cathedral *deserves to be read—perhaps most of all because, despite himself, Weigel leaves one with the impression that Europe and America fundamentally share the same problems and interests, both of which are centered on the question of the very possibility of retaining communities, nations, spirituality, and dynamism in a world not only of mass immigration, but of consumerism, economic efficiency, universalism and self-satisfaction.

A crucial case study in survival and triumph mentioned by Weigel is Poland. In the 18th and 19th Centuries, Poland existed solely as a plot of land to be divided and traded between the great powers. The 20th Century brought far worse horrors. Is it not then a miracle that Poland played as significant a role as any in bringing the Soviet Union to an end, and afterwards emerged unified as a nation and people? Weigel is right to find the source of the Poles’ enduring strength in their culture. Even accounting for terrorism, Americans and Europeans face nothing even resembling the direct threat to survival experienced by the Poles. Yet their shared culture is no less at stake.

The Third Sex & Democracy

via Counter-Currents

Our local communist or leftist intelligentsia never fails to generously provide us with indications of its moral level. After its poorly concealed sympathies for Cavallero, a theorist and activist of “revolutionary” banditry, of the banditry of “protest” (an unoriginal one: Stalin did the same in his youth), and for the gangster “Che” Guevara, we now have its indignant comments regarding “abhorrent trial” and conviction of Aldo Braibanti [an Italian writer and former antifascist partisan].

Headed by l’Unità [an Italian communist newspaper], most of Moravia’s [Alberto Moravia, a well-known Jewish writer who was a friend of Pasolini] and Pasolini’s clique has been mobilized, including Elsa Morante (who for the occasion has changed sex: calling herself a “poet” [poeta] and not a poetess [poetessa], cf. Paese Sera, 17 July). “What is rotten in the Braibanti trial,” it has been said, “is not the existence of homosexuality,” to which Braibanti has converted his minions, “but the racist (?) ferocity directed against the third sex . . . the odor of a lynch mob that any suspicion of homosexuality triggers in an environment in which morality is equated with moralism of the most obscurantist and repressive kind” (Unity, July 14).

Morante, who counts herself among “the Italians of good will . . . among those, for example, who many times have flocked to demonstrate against the Vietnam War,” refuses to see any crime in inducing young people to follow one’s own ideas, “turning them away from the morality that still holds sway in some classes of Italian society” (and for this reason our penal code has been called “outdated and classist”): knowing full well what those ideas were, in this particular case [homosexuality]. She defends the “choices” made in opposition to a society “that today has confirmed itself, in my eyes, to be an aggregate of dead cells,” and says that “if in the past I have not worked hard enough at helping my fellow man, especially the younger ones, to break free from these dead cells, it is my intention now and the future to remedy this as best I can, as long as I live.” Shortly before she had quoted “the Nobel laureate André Gide, one of many homosexuals who have greatly distinguished themselves in the history of civilisation and culture.”

As far as impudence and intellectual aberration go, this should suffice. The actual state of affairs is even inverted: instead of viewing as putrescent the parts of society where the third sex and homosexual “choices“ thrive, she wants to attribute this term to those who combat that morass and attempt to hold it at bay. “Do not invoke the sacred right of everyone to convert others to their ideas.” Certain ideas are like bacteria, like microbes; paralyzing them is as necessary and legitimate as prophylactic measures in the field of physical pathology. The fact that homosexuality is not considered a criminal offence by our (“classist”) Penal Code, and consequently that it is not considered a criminal offence to promote it through propaganda, is just. But beyond the strictly criminal and legal domain, the need for prophylactic measures retains its validity.

This will easily be recognized by anyone who – unlike the squalid intelligentsia previously mentioned – takes the trouble to examine in depth the meaning of the third sex and of homosexuality. A very brief outline can provide guidance.

In sexology a distinction is made between two forms of homosexuality: one of an innate and constitutional character, the other acquired and conditioned by psycho-sociological and environmental factors. The first type of homosexuality can be explained by the “intermediate sexual forms” (to use the expression of M. Hirschfeld). We know that initially in the embryo and fetus both sexes are present. Only subsequently does a process of sexual differentiation take place, as a result of which the characters of one sex become dominant, while those of the opposite sex atrophy or become latent, without, however, disappearing entirely. There are cases in which this process of sexual development is incomplete, in its physical or psychic aspects. Then it may be that the erotic attraction that in normal cases is founded on the polarity of the sexes (heterosexuality), and that is all the more intense the more marked this polarity is, i.e., the more a man is man and a woman is woman, can arise even between individuals who by birth, but not by constitution, are of the same sex, precisely because they are actually “intermediate forms.”

In these cases, homosexuality can be explained, and can be understood: to want to make homosexuals of this type “normal,” i.e. make them be attracted by the opposite sex, would be to do violence to them, to want them not to be themselves: therapeutic attempts of this kind have always failed. The social problem would be solved if these homosexuals formed closed milieux, remaining among themselves and not infecting others who do not suffer form their condition. There would be no reason to condemn them in the name of any morality.

But homosexuality cannot in fact be reduced to such cases. Firstly, there have been male homosexuals who were not effeminate, “intermediate forms,” including soldiers and individuals who were decidedly manly in appearance and behavior. History, especially antiquity, attests this. Secondly, there are the cases of acquired homosexuality and those that psychoanalysis explains as “regressive forms.” It is not easy to understand the first category. Here one has every right to speak of deviation and perversion, of “vice.” It is not clear, in fact, what it is that can erotically attract a man who is truly a man to an individual of the same sex. In classical antiquity, however, what is attested is not so much exclusive homosexuality as bisexuality (sex with both women and boys) and it seems that the motive was one of “wanting to try everything.” But even that is not completely clear, since apart from the fact that among the young ephebes, the boys, which for the most part were preferred, there was a female element, you could take Goethe’s crude saying, that “when you’re bored with a girl as a girl, you can always use her like a boy “(“habe ich sie als Mädchen satt, dient es als Knabe misnoch”). Even the motivation (sometimes observed in countries such as Turkey and Japan) that homosexual possession gives one a sense of power, is not too convincing. The desire for domination can also be satisfied with women, or with other beings, without any admixture of eroticism.

Until recently homosexuality belonged primarily to the world of decadent aestheticism (Wilde, Verlaine, Gide, etc.) and was sporadic; the “pleasure of trying everything” could in such cases play an important role. But today things are different; we are witnessing a quite massive onslaught of homosexuality and of the third sex even among the lower classes and in other groups that had previously been spared from this form of deviancy. Here it is necessary to call in another order of considerations, namely the possible influence of a certain climate, of a certain environment.

We noted earlier that the male or female individual must be considered as the result of the predominance of a force of sexual differentiation that leaves its imprint while at the same time neutralizing or excluding the originally coexistent possibility of the other sex, especially on the in physical, physiological plane (one the psychic plane the margin of fluctuation can be much wider).

Now, one might suppose that as a result of a regression the dominant power on which the sexual differentiation – being really a man or woman – depends, is weakened. Just as in the political domain, the weakening in society of any central authority allows all the forces from below that previously were held in check to be liberated and re-emerge, in the same way in the individual we can observe the emergence of the latent character of the opposite sex and, as a consequence, a tendency towards bisexuality.

How it Could Happen: The Candidacy of Donald Trump

via The Occidental Observer

We all rack our brains every day trying how to break through in a system that is completely stacked against us. How could it happen—a political movement that would ignite the imaginations of White America, depose the corrupt donor class in the Republican Party, and begin to really take the country back?

Right now, doing so is a huge uphill battle. The oppressive mainstream media environment is closed to obviously true messages that Whites have interests just like everybody else. Indeed, it is busy tearing down what’s left of traditional American culture. And despite the internet, the mainstream media, including outlets such as Fox News, continues to wield enormous power, and the vast majority of Americans, including educated Americans, accept its legitimacy and moral authority. Despite the First Amendment, we all know that there are a variety of very powerful social sanctions against anyone who contravenes the racial consensus.

Further, it is extremely difficult for a grass roots political process to gain traction in the U.S. where there are two entrenched political parties and winner-take-all elections, with no proportional representation. Political parties need money—big money, billionaire-type money, and they need highly recognizable names — neither of which is typically available to a grass roots movement. Such movements have a hard time getting traction or a sense of legitimacy, and it’s very difficult to get their word out, especially if it contravenes what our media elites want to hear.

But political celebrities have an enormous ability to shape public debate because the media cannot ignore them. The media can and will do all it can to destroy celebrities that err on the side of political incorrectness, but they can’t prevent the message from getting out.

Which brings me to Donald Trump. I have to admit that I have always thought of Trump as a lightweight — just another guy with an outsize ego whose main goal was to become rich and famous. When he announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination, I thought it was just more of the same—another chance to get his name out there, promote his brand (he seems to name all his enterprises after himself, so running for president seemed likely to help his clothing line, golf courses, media enterprises, etc. — except that’s a difficult explanation in light of what happened after his comments on Mexican immigrants). It seemed like the ultimate vanity candidacy. That may still turn out to be the case.

But maybe not. Trump’s statements on the criminal tendencies and generally low functioning of Mexican and Central American immigrants have struck a chord with White America. And he certainly did not fall in my estimation when he attacked two prominent operatives of the Republican Party/Israel Lobby nexus hostile to his candidacy, Charles Krauthammer and Jonah Goldberg. Then there’s the Twitter incident: “I promise you that I’m much smarter than Jonathan Leibowitz — I mean Jon Stewart @TheDailyShow,” tweeted Trump, adding, “Who, by the way, is totally overrated.” It is, of course, considered “anti-Semitic” to ever call attention to the fact that someone is Jewish because of the absolutely outrageous suggestion that the Jewish identity of someone like Stewart/Leibowitz might influence his opinions. As we all know, Jews are just like everybody else.

These are perhaps the first shots in what will become a raging conflagration between the Jewish media establishment and Trump if he continues to gain traction.

Suddenly, Trump is #1 in the polls for the nomination. You can’t turn on a Fox News talking head show without seeing a discussion of the vicious murder in San Francisco, with routine references to Trump’s candidacy. Doubtless great for Fox ratings because it taps into White anger and insecurity in the face of all the changes being unleashed by our hostile elites, from gay marriage, to removing traditional American symbols, to the new housing regulations that will make it more difficult for Whites to get away from diversity. There is outrage at the San Francisco City Council’s lack of action to change their policies. And there is outrage that the Obama White House, which went all in on Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, et al. (Obama: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” not to mention family visits to meet the president) — the same White House that can’t even express its condolences to Kathryn Steinle’s family and sees fit to blame it on the Republicans because they didn’t pass a bill that would have “solved” the immigration problem by massively increasing immigration of the poor, uneducated, and criminality prone, add yet more “border enforcement” that would be unenforced (just like current immigration laws), and by giving amnesty to people like Steinle’s murderer, Francisco Lopez-Sanchez. And of course, even some Republicans are making the same argument, notably Marco Rubio.

But none of this sudden publicity about illegal alien criminality would have happened without Donald Trump. Horrifying crimes by legal and illegal immigrants against Whites and other traditional American people happen all the time. But like Black-on-White crimes, they get no national coverage. (Breitbart reports that “Thanks in part to deadly ‘sanctuary city’ policies, 347,000 convicted criminal immigrants remain at large in the U.S. — and illegal immigrants accounted for 37 percent of all federal sentences handed down in 2014.”) There is local coverage of illegal alien crime (typically without mentioning immigration status or race of offender) and there are notices on a few conservative-oriented websites that are outside the mainstream and have minuscule readership compared to the mainstream media. And while illegal immigrant crime has sporadically been discussed on Fox News (here’s a Fox story from 2014 on two Sacramento policemen killed by a twice-deported illegal alien—a story that probably very few remember), they are unable to ignite a national discussion to the point of influencing electoral politics. The same for the wonderful book, ¡Adios America!, by Ann Coulter.

But because of his celebrity status, Trump managed to get the criminality of illegal aliens on the national agenda. Even the New York Times covered it. And because of his wealth, he could run a viable presidential campaign without tapping into the billions of Sheldon Adelson, Larry Ellison, Norman Braman or the rest of the Republican Jewish Coalition as Marco Rubio (among others) is doing and by making war with Iran the most important question for Americans to decide in the 2016 election. Incidentally, Rubio agrees with the Democrats that passing the Gang of Eight immigration amnesty/surge bill would have prevented the Steinle murder (despite the fact that that bill would have lavishly funded sanctuary cities).

Which means that Trump could attempt to run as an independent on issues like displacement-level immigration, opposition to free trade, and national sovereignty. Such a campaign would resonate with a very large segment of White America, and it would certainly dash the hopes for anyone else the Republican money decides to nominate (including the despicable Jeb Bush who said that he took Trump’s comments personally because of his Mexican wife and Mestizo children).

What the establishment fears most is a highly visible, personally attractive, honest, populist candidate who cannot be shut out of the media and with enough money to run a viable campaign. It happened in 1992 with the candidacy of Ross Perot, and it is quite possible that such a candidacy would just make it easier for Hillary (adjectives for Hilary fail me) to win. But the choice between Jeb et al. and Hillary is really no choice at all given that the neocons have pretty much all of them in their thrall, and they basically agree on key issues for Whites like immigration (with the possible exception of Scott Walker). And that would pave the way for a new political party after 2016 that would begin to address the interests of the traditional American people.

In any case, the Republican Party, the party of big business and the Israel Lobby, richly deserves to die unless it can appeal to the legitimate interests of its base—White America of all social classes, both sexes, and all age groups — all of which voted for Romney even though he hardly represented their interests.

Obviously, Trump may be a false hope. But there certainly are other Whites who could undergo a conversion experience and use their celebrity status, and their money (or could attract enough money—a Charles Lindbergh-like figure comes to mind) to make it happen. It’s not over until it’s over.

When Is a Canard not a Canard? When it Is 'Jewish Achievement'

via DavidDuke.com

According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a canard is a false or unfounded report or story; especially :  a fabricated report.” According to a South Korean website, “Jews are known to wield enormous power on Wall Street and in global financial circles.The Jerusalem Post provides a pretty impressive list of the “most influential Jews in finance, economics and business.” Yet the Jewish Telegraphic Agency ran the following headline:

South Korea media repeat anti-Semitic canards ahead of merger vote 

JERUSALEM (JTA) — South Korean media have repeated anti-Semitic canards about Jews and money in the face of a corporate merger vote.

“Jews are known to wield enormous power on Wall Street and in global financial circles,” according to a column on a South Korean news website. “It is a well-known fact that the U.S. government is swayed by Jewish capital.”

The situation was first reported Thursday by the Times of Israel.

The South Korean website MoneyToday also wrote about Jewish influence in “a number of domains,” citing a financial industry source.

On July 17, the shareholders of the construction company Samsung C&T will vote on a merger with Cheil Industries. Both are subsidiaries of the Samsung Group, the country’s largest family-controlled conglomerate, and the merger is part of a consolidation effort.

Lobbying against the merger, which is popular in South Korea, is the New York-based hedge fund Elliott Associates, which is owned and managed by Paul Singer, who is Jewish.

Singer is described on the news website Mediapen.com as a “greedy, ruthless head of a notorious hedge fund” that has received support from the Institutional Shareholder Services, or ISS, a proxy advisory firm, because of “Jewish money.”

Articles claimed that ISS is under Jewish influence because it is owned by MSCI, formerly Morgan Stanley Capital International, “which is owned by Jewish major shareholders.” MSCI sold ISS more than a year ago, according to the Times of Israel.

“According to the finance industry, the fact that Elliott and ISS are both Jewish institutions cannot be ignored,” MoneyToday reported. “Elliott is led by a Jew, Paul E. Singer, and ISS is an affiliate of Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI), whose key shareholders are Jewish. According to a source in the finance industry, Jews have a robust network demonstrating influence in a number of domains.”

North America, as Viewed by a South American

via TradYouth

Herbert Marcuse was a Jewish Cultural Marxist,
associated with the Frankfurt School
of critical theory
TradYouth Editor's Note: This article is by an Uruguayan educated in the field of psychology, and is a brief look into the past and present condition of liberalism in North America.  It is published here with minor changes to spelling and grammar.

Let’s try to think about what happened after WW II concerning the general Occidental intellectual field. It is a complex task and a really varied phenomenon, but we can observe some elementary and essential issues: the French right-wing worldview (what Germans call die Weltanschauung) –led mainly by Charles Maurras– was completely undermined, not only for being assimilated to the general insulting epithet of “fascist stuff”, but also for belonging to monarchical conceptions. It was reactionary even in relation to the revolutionary Nazi-fascism far-right thinking. Also, the fascism is undermined in all its ideological expressions and local tendencies (Degrelle, Primo de Rivera, Codreanu, and so on), but not only that, even the classical Marxism was put into question too. 

It will come to a new kind of leftist ideological matrix built by new French academics: the new academic leftists like Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, François Lyotard, Simone de Beauvoir, Jacques Derrida, and so on. But not one like Sartre: he was a too-old intellectual figure, a so classically Marxist thinker -despite all of his uncanny lexical paraphernalia- and in 1968 he was seen as an ancient figure from the past. Young people clamored for another kind of ideological speech. And they founded it. They found a more exciting ideological discourse by reading and studying boring Hegelian and Phenomenological stuff extracted from canonical German Philosophy such as Bergson, Merleau-Ponty or Sartre. 

All those new thinkers have their own differences, but they took a common substratum from the reconversion of classical Marxism into a post-structuralist one. This phenomena could only come from a kind of Europe that was financed by the Marshall Plan. The time of a new neo-Marxist and certainly “liberal” Left had come to us. Why do I say “liberal” in this case? Because it will substitute the class struggle idea with that of the sexual and individual liberation alongside the free market of drugs and the family’s destruction, which will be denounced as a kind of “bourgeois prison” by some nihilist and radical feminists. The gender ideology will emerge as a creepy intellectual virus. Another important aspect: in the end it is not incompatible with a capitalistic market as the classical Marxism was. 

That’s the point where French ideological reconversion intersects the USA’s own ideological intellectual process: The encounter of post-structuralist Left with the Frankfurt School. Today we will not take this specific topic into analytic account, but as we know, the Jewish Frankfurt School movement migrated to the USA during the Nazi period prolifically expanding in New York and California academia. There is a specific figure in which we are interested: Herbert Marcuse, the New Left’s Father as it is said. On the other hand, some French intellectuals like Foucault, Derrida and Lyotard will widely succeed in the United States’ academies. In fact, Derrida introduced a wide-ranging theoretical set of conceptual tools –such as deconstruction– that keep feeding leftist intellectuals and activists to this day. 

This new intersection, this ideological and philosophical meeting of ideas between Post-structuralism and the Jewish Frankfurt School in the United States will produce a new neo-Marxist cultural background in which sexual liberation will come to rebellion, the family will be driven to ideological disintegration, the Church besieged (both Catholic and Protestant), masculinity will be put into query and the women instigated to furious umbrage against men. A general cultural nihilism will set among all of us. A new and radical phase of decadence had come and set in among us. Not only the stunning and nice traditional (North) America suffered these consequences, but all America (also the South), and, of course, western Europe. The European East was kept behind a literal iron wall, so a merging and powerful nationalist identity kept on beating underneath the communist regime. Nowadays we can see that most of the truly interesting nationalistic movements are coming from the East, such as Jobbik in Hungary. In fact, those folks preserve their national identity much better than us because they were not submitted to the ideological postmodern stuff (except economically). 

In next articles we will analyze specifically all of these topics, but now we must ask ourselves what this New Left means and proposes to us as our cultural enemy. 
The New Left ideology proposes that Nations, Homelands and sacred loved Traditions are “social constructs”. It is cognitive relativistic: it seems that all points of views depend on a solipsistic and individualistic subject, and worse, they are all intrinsically equal. It asserts that sexuality is a mere subjective option, leveling all tendencies as the same, or even worse: all those tendencies above heterosexuality. It states that Christian faith is oppressive and responsible for the worst crimes in human History and against humanity. It states that “History” is not to be written with capital letter (“H”), and instead of that it proposes the notion of narration. It has declared war against God and all transcendent notions and concepts. It wants a New World Order where individuals keep living in the Immanence’s lap of Evil, surrounded by a radical egalitarianism and all human and moral issues leveling. 

The answer is: are we going to allow it…?

The Islamic State Attacks Europeans

via American Renaissance

Seifiddine Rezgui Yacoubi
On June 26, a solitary gunman walked onto the beach at a Tunisian resort popular with Europeans and started shooting. During nearly half an hour of carnage, he killed 38 people, all of them white. He wounded 39 more–32 of them white. Amateur video taken during the attack shows a large number of Tunisian hotel staff running about. Some of them reportedly protected tourists by standing in front of them, so it is clear that the killer, Seifiddine Rezgui Yacoubi, deliberately targeted Europeans.

That same day, a Muslim living in France named Yassin Salhi killed and beheaded his French boss, and impaled his head on a fence at an industrial gas plant. He also put up Muslim and Islamic State flags, and tried to set off explosions at the plant.

Both attackers were more or less conventional Muslims. The Tunisian gunman had a girlfriend, drank alcohol, and was a dab hand at break dancing. The French attacker had been under surveillance for radical views, but had a wife and three children and a steady job as a truck driver. Both men were apparently responding to calls from the Islamic State (IS) to carry out jihad during the holy month of Ramadan, when Muslims fast from sun down to sun up, and turn their thoughts to Allah. IS especially likes attacks on tourist hotels. It calls beach resorts full of underdressed white women “brothels.”

Some of the victims of the Tunisia attack

Are these attacks, like those in Britain, France, the United States, Belgium, and even Australia, a sign that jihad is turning increasingly anti-white? Probably not.

On the very same day as the French and Tunisian attacks, a bombing at a Shia mosque in Kuwait City killed at least 27 people, an Al-Shabab attack in Somalia left 70 dead, and an IS fighter blew himself up in Hasakeh, Syria, taking 20 Syrian Army soldiers with him.

In the attack on the tourist resort, whites were the immediate victims, but Tunisia–a Muslim Arab country–will suffer the long-term damage. The shootings came just three months after jihadis attacked the Bardo National Museum in the capital city, Tunis, killing 22 people. Twenty were foreign tourists, as were almost all the wounded. The result has been thousands of cancelations by European tourists, which will hit the country hard. Tourism and related employment account for as much as 10 percent of GNP. It would take only an occasional attack to eliminate Tunisia almost completely as a European tourist destination.

Nevertheless, IS represents something new for violent Islam. Muslims have been hijacking airplanes and blowing people up for decades, but they have almost always had specific political objectives. At the time of the 9/11 attacks, there was a lot of mush about how Al-Qaeda attacked us because it “hated our freedoms,” but Osama bin Laden clearly explained his reasons: He wanted US troops out of Saudi Arabia, an end to sanctions against Iraq, and no more support for Israel.

IS is different. It has political objectives, but they are subordinate to religious objectives. Its leaders take seriously the Koranic injunction to spread Islam to every corner of the globe and to slaughter infidels who reject Islam. They believe they are following in the footsteps of The Prophet, and they are right. IS does not single out the West for special hostility, except for the fact that Europeans and Americans are bombing their strongholds in Iraq and Syria. When France joined the airstrikes IS stepped up its call to kill French infidels.

For IS, Islam is what matters; race is a detail. Perhaps IS’s most grisly televised spectacular has been the death by burning of a Jordanian pilot–an enemy of IS but a fellow Arab and Muslim. The Libyan franchise of the Islamic State videoed the beheadings of 21 Egyptian Christians–men who looked like typical Middle-Eastern Arabs. And earlier this month, the Egyptian group in what IS calls its “Sinai Province” killed dozens of Egyptian soldiers in coordinated attacks. IS has killed far more Muslims and Arabs than it has Europeans.

Latest estimates are that there are 5,000 to 6,000 Muslims from Europe fighting for IS and other jihad movements. France alone is thought to have contributed 1,500 fighters. The handful of white converts to Islam who have gone to fight for IS appear to be welcomed. The question is: Why do European jihadis bother to go to Iraq and Syria when there are so many infidels they could kill right at home?

Here is a typical IS call to action:
Likewise, we renew our call to the [Muslims] in Europe and the disbelieving West and everywhere else to target the Crusaders in their own lands and wherever they are found. We will argue, before Allah, against any Muslim who has the ability to shed a single drop of Crusader blood but does not do so, whether with an explosive device, a bullet, a knife, a car, a rock or even a boot or a fist.
The attacker in France did as he was told: He carved off his employer’s head with a kitchen knife. Imagine what those 6,000 jihadis could do if they had stayed in Europe. They wouldn’t even have to act together. A series of uncoordinated, copycat attacks would terrify the continent. Even minor assaults would be magnified 1,000-fold under the glare of panicked media. Surely even a few killings would be more satisfying–and qualify for just as many posthumous virgins–as dying anonymously in a firefight with Kurds.

There are said to be an estimated 3,500 Tunisians fighting for IS in the Middle East. Why do they travel to Iraq when the Bardo and beach-resort attacks prove that there are plenty of targets right there in Tunisia?

It is clear that IS fascinates young Muslim men looking for adventure and authentic Islam. It may be that the desire actually to live under the first modern caliphate is stronger than the desire to stay in Europe and kill infidels. But for as long as IS exists, it will send its message of murder to Muslims all over the world, and some will act on it.

If IS grows stronger, it may send its own killing missions to the European countries most involved in bombing it. The Islamic State has something called the Khilafa army that it uses for foreign operations and training. And if IS is destroyed, there is no telling what the survivors will do when they get back to Europe.

Whatever happens, some number of Muslims everywhere are open to IS’s injunction to kill infidels wherever they may be found. This has opened a new chapter in relations between Islam and the West. The larger the number of Muslims in any population, the larger will be number who decide to kill their infidel neighbors. This new threat only underlines the folly of allowing Muslims into non-Muslim countries.

The REAL Wrong Side of History

via Alternative Right

A common tactic employed by leftists is to accuse their enemies of being on “the wrong side of history.” When I toured UC Santa Cruz around 9 years ago, I recall seeing a mural juxtaposing old school Jim Crow bigotry with current conservative hostility towards homosexual marriage. The image must have caught on, because I could easily find it online.

The implication is that history will harshly judge opponents of homosexual rights, just as we passionately denounce Jim Crow racism. Such logic is now being applied to transsexual rights; check out this segment from John Oliver – the newest liberal comedic cult figure – where he asserts (skip to 16:15) that history will not be kind to those of us who oppose this newest civil rights movement.

In so many words, if we don’t enthusiastically embrace the left’s agenda, then people like us will be reviled for all eternity.

Will we? The arrogant leftist notion that the arc of the universe bends towards justice (i.e. what they want) is predicated on the belief that Western liberalism will remain hegemonic. However, I suspect that this dominant liberal narrative will erode as China and other Asian nations continue to rise. We already know that Asian countries have no use for the kind of bizarre identity politics running amok in the West.

In fact, given how pervasive intense nationalism is in Asia, I suspect that Asia’s ascendancy – combined with the West’s demise – will alter the way we view history. Such a paradigm shift will not be kind to the likes of John Oliver. Future Asian historians will be nonplussed upon learning that Americans placed a higher premium on transsexual rights than nationalism or a strong economy. They will also shake their heads and chuckle when reading about how historical white figureheads such as Joe Biden celebrated the impending minority status of their own people. They’ll wonder why the most dominant group in human history threw it all away in the name of quixotic ideals.

They will, with amusement and contempt, consign the Western left to the wrong side of history.

Whiteness, Ethics, & Morality

via Western Spring

The natural and righteous code of ethics and morality for Whites:

1. What is good for Whites is good.
2. What is bad for Whites is bad.

Simple enough, but as might be expected, it is necessary to explain more for a fuller understanding of these two rules.

Too many Whites are caught up in universal religious ethics and morality and mistakenly live their whole lives thinking this is the way things should be.  It is not.  Universal  ethics and morality  generally teach  that one should treat all humans the same and that one should serve others — pathological altruism — no matter who the others are.  This false idea is the progeny of the more basic false idea that all humans are basically the same except for different  paint jobs and that underneath those different paint jobs the engines are all the same.  Big mistake.  Humans are not all the same.  Not by a long shot.  In fact, the races are so different that Charles Darwin correctly wrote: “[T]he varieties of mankind are so different that similar differences found in any other animals would warrant their classification in different species, if not in different genera.” –Charles Darwin

In believing the falsehood that all humans are the same and in internalizing this flat-world nonsense, one then thinks that all people are fungible.  So, in such false thinking,  if the White ones die off one wrongly believes  it’s no big deal because there are still plenty of humans around. Well, the reality is that if you are White and all the White ones die off including you and your family lines, you are extinct.  You have no place in existence.  The fact that other kinds of humans are around is essentially meaningless to you and other Whites. Those general parts of your DNA  code that read such things as mammal and human still exist in other kinds of humans, but the parts that specifically read “Whiteness” are gone and it is the parts that read Whiteness that are most important and meaningful  for your existence.   Without these right parts that read Whiteness, a human is like a radio that is missing some parts and can’t  receive the “radio waves” aimed at Whiteness that are all around it.  This is not to say that Whites are superior to other kinds of humans, but it is to say that we are different as they are different and it is also to say that our continued existence requires our White difference.

To maintain that White difference we must only breed with our fellow Whites.  Miscegenation is a great evil and must be avoided.

Happy White People 6

The reality of existence is that we Whites can only find our most complete existence  and identity as Whites.  This is so, because we are most fully us in the White DNA code that makes us and all other pure Whites the people we are.  If the White DNA code continues to exist, even when our bodies die, we are still existent, even without consciousness in other Whites and most fully, of course, in direct descendents of us as individuals. There is, however, something of us in all pure Whites.  In other humans and other organisms, some of the more general DNA  code exists (after all, DNA is DNA no matter which organism it is in) but we are such a small percentage us in all non-White organisms, including non-White humans,  that it is meaningless.  Whites must exist for us to exist and this applies to the future long after we are gone. And, speaking of all DNA being the same, we just remember it is the shuffle–the order–of the four chemicals of DNA that matters in what type of organism is created, not the raw chemicals.

Our morality–the morality that some of us follow, and which you may also wish to consider–is based on the truths of nature and evolution.  We have a solid and unshakeable understanding that what is right and good must be based on what is right and good for us as Whites. This  means what helps us survive, expand, evolve and be happy is good and right.  If it is good for Whites, it is good.  If it is bad for Whites, it is bad.  But, herein lies something that must be understood.  Good and bad for Whites does not just mean what is good and bad right now and for the person we see in the mirror.  It also means what is good for our DNA code that is inside us and which makes us who and what we are and which also makes us part of all pure Whites.

Of course, there are universals, but there are also particulars. And we must, as White people, look out for ourselves as White people first and always, and put nothing in front of or above Whiteness. This means, in part, we must not put false universal religions above Whiteness.  Everything must be for Whiteness. Our lives, our religions, our world view, our philosophy, our culture, our nations, our beliefs, our politics…everything…must put Whiteness above all else. There must be no fragmentation of ourselves-no alienation from our most essential selves–our White DNA code–all must be integrated into Whiteness and flow from it.

To understand why across the board universal ethics and morality are wrong with respect to us as Whites, one needs to understand the reality of the gene wars (you may prefer the terms gene struggles or gene contests), which are eternal and necessary for evolution to work.

The gene wars are simply different versions of  genes trying to replace other versions for the same characteristics, and the gene wars start in us during our conception. When the male sperm, carrying approximately 10,000 genes, meets the female egg, also carrying approximately 10,000 genes, the various versions of genes have to compete to build a new human.  There are thousands of contests that have to be won.  Which characteristics from the father or the mother will win in the new human?  Which eye color, hair color and texture, nose shape, lip shape, body type, brain characteristics and on and on and on will the new human have?  Now, these gene wars seem fairly benign within our bodies, especially when the mother and father are of the same race, but when they are of different races, the gene wars are not as benign and one race beats the other on various characteristics including one of the most obvious characteristics: skin color.

White People

With the above in mind, you also have to understand that you have a right to exist and to exist as you are, as a White person. You have that right simply because you do exist.  You are the most important person to you. Without you, nothing else matters to you since without you, you are nonexistent.  And, as you think along these lines you must realize that no one is more important than you or has any more right to exist or to any part of existence of the planet than you.  Kings, Queens, presidents, prime ministers, billionaires, religious leaders, whoever–no one is more important than you. You take no second seat to any of them.  You are you, and you are important. Without you, there is nothing for you.  And, as you have a right to exist you have the right to your freedom.  You have a right to try to find happiness.  You have a right to associate with or not associate with any other persons for any reasons you so choose.  You are the King or Queen of yourself.

You are here.  All of existence, for you, depends on your existence.  Nothing matters if you are not here. It is the same with the rest of us.  But, you also need to understand that you, as the person you see in the mirror, are created by your DNA code.  Your DNA code has many aspects.  In you, some aspects of the DNA code are absolutely unique and not like any other DNA code.  However–and going from the specific you to ever more general levels–you share the next level of that code with your family and then your extended family and then with all Whites, and so on and so on and you can keep extending  this right out to ever more general categories such as mammals,  organisms, minerals, subatomic particles and energies because at some level they are part of you.  However, it makes no logical or practical sense to go beyond Whites for your identity.   Feeling one with all minerals, for example, because you are made of minerals makes no sense. And, feeling one with all non-White humans also makes no sense. So, we stop our identity train with all Whites.  Whites look like you and think like you and act like you, as looked at statistically, because they are like you.  They have the same DNA code that reads non-Jewish White person as you do.

Our ethical and moral code–what is right and what is wrong–flows naturally, in a secular sense, from the ways of existence as they really are, and informs our understanding of the primary importance of our DNA code and our genes to our existence as we see ourselves in the mirror and as the recipe that makes us who and what we are and for our future life within our offspring if we mate correctly with our own kind.

Just a few words here about some of what is immoral for us as Whites because we are White, and these are particular to us and are part of the extra burden we carry to fix the broken world. It is immoral for Whites to butt into the affairs of non-Whites or to let non-Whites butt into our affairs. We have our White trajectory and destiny and non-Whites have theirs. The different destinies should not be blended together  or mixed.  It is immoral for Whites to miscegenate, to have abortions, to limit our family size, to commit suicide, to practice celibacy, to not have as many pure White children as possible.

The highest morality for Whites is to be truly White.  To be as we are born to be and to not hobble ourselves with false morality and false values which is what false religions do to us.  We must be us.  And the us that Whites are is a race (we’re really a subspecies, but we’ll use the term race here for convenience) that invents, explores, builds.  We are scientists and engineers by nature–at least in our ideal forms.  It is part of our nature.  It is part of our DNA code.

Whiteness 1

Our happiness depends on us facing the world as Whites and in not trying to be less than we can be and in not trying to fit non-Whites into our genetic program or societies or us into theirs.  They do not have our genetic program and they are a bad fit into Whiteness, just as we are a bad fit into their genetic programs.

The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945, Part 2

via Carolyn Yeager

Listen Now

Part 1

Carolyn reads chapters 3 and 4.

Chapter three is titled "Related German Agencies" and describes the numerous other official agencies with whom the War Crimes Bureau collaborated, and how cooperation was carried out.

Chapter four, "Methods of Obtaining Evidence" tells us how cases were built and gives some vivid examples of mutilations and other outrages committed against German soldiers on the East, West and South Fronts. The bulk of the testimony (approx. 85%) came from ten's of thousands of sworn witnesses giving depositions to military judges or local courts. 1hr12m

Cuckservative Self-Awareness?

via Radix

Chalk up another victory for the GOP in the Culture War!

Jim Treacher at The Daily Caller:
Kudos to Nikki Haley. Democrats created what we now call the Confederate flag, and Democrats voted to fly that flag in South Carolina. It took a Republican governor to bring it down. […]
This is a striking rebuke to the Democrats, the party of slavery. Say goodbye to your beloved symbol of hatred, Democrats. The rest of us have moved on.
The tone of this blog, particularly the last paragraph, strikes me as sarcastic, as if Treacher is aware of how stupid his argument is, aware of how much he’s become a parody of a “cuckservative.”


Obviously, the association of the Confederate Battle Flag with Republicans has very little to do with Democrats' covering up their racist tracks. The people who cast 90 percent of Republican votes are “like” the people who, 50 years ago, supported and participated in segregation. In South Carolina, the people who vote Republican are the actual descendants of segregationists.

Liberals rightly view political parties as vehicles for people. It is the people who are important. Cuckservatives equate political parties with abstract and vague notions, like “liberty” and “free markets.” It is the abstract and vague notions that are important. People are interchangeable. Thus, Nikki Halley is a great “Southern conservative,” because she talks about freedom and drinks sweet tea.

Remembering Carl Schmitt: July 11, 1888–April 7, 1985

via Counter-Currents

Carl Schmitt was born on July 11, 1888 in Plettenberg, Westphalia, Germany–where he died on April 7, 1985, at the age of 96. The son of a Roman Catholic small businessman, Carl Schmitt studied law in Berlin, Munich, and Strasbourg, graduating and taking his state exams in Strasbourg in 1915. In 1916, he earned his habilitation in Strasbourg, qualifying him to be a law professor. He taught at business schools and universities in Munich, Greifswald, Bonn, Berlin, and Cologne.

During the Third Reich, Schmitt joined the NSDAP (on May 1, 1933). He was appointed Prussian State Counselor and President of the Union of National Socialist Jurists. He particularly enjoyed the confidence and patronage of Hermann Göring, but from 1936 on was regarded as ideologically unsound by some within the SS. In 1945, he was arrested and interned for more than a year by American occupiers. Schmitt refused “de-Nazification” and retired to the village of his birth where he continued to write, receive visitors, and quietly maintain his political contacts until the end of his life. Among his many visitors were Ernst Jünger, Alexandre Kojève, Guillaume Faye, and Jean-Louis Feuerbach.

Schmitt is now widely recognized as one of the great anti-liberal political and legal theorists, whose works are valued on the anti-liberal left as well as on the right. His books are steadily being translated into English. Available titles include:
Schmitt is one of the most significant political theorists for the North American New Right, and one measure of the embryonic state of our movement is that we are just beginning to come to grips with him. Counter-Currents/North American New Right has published a number of works by Schmitt online:
We have also published several studies of Schmitt:
The following essays make substantial reference to Schmitt:
In the coming years, we will considerably expand our coverage of Schmitt by commissioning studies of his various works as well as translations of literature by European New Right authors. All of this is contingent on our ability to raise the necessary funds, so please consider donating to our summer fund-raising campaign today.

Defending Christ’s Image in Man

via Cambria Will not Yield

I believe in, and honour, all those time-hallowed values and factors which have led us to greatness in the past, and which if retained will guarantee the greatness of our posterity. For unless we maintain the highest standards of which we are capable we shall not survive except as the slaves of others, which in the long run would mean that we would not survive at all.

Thus I am indeed biased and prejudiced. I am indeed a ‘racist’ and in fundamental matters an extremist.  –  Anthony Jacob

Donald Trump reminds me of Vladimir Putin; he is not a Christian warrior, but at least he is a Roman pagan. His statement that he was sick of illegal Mexican aliens coming into our country and committing crimes was really quite a mild and justified protest. The reaction to Trump’s remark was quite telling. Jeb Bush, brother of Georgie Porgie, who ran under the threat, “If you think this country’s bad off now, just wait till I get through with it,” quickly condemned Trump, in Spanish no less. And the Hindu from Louisiana, Tiptoe-through-the-Tulips Jindal, also condemned Trump, as did the entire anti-white media and various Aztec organizations scattered throughout multicultural America.

Of course all the hysteria, feigned and real, over Trump’s remark was quite predictable, but let’s look at it closely. Why would anyone object to stopping illegal Mexican immigrants from coming into the United States? Time and time again we hear of white people being murdered by Mexicans who have been sent back over the border for crimes committed on American soil and then return and kept returning until they kill a white American. Once is too much, but the sons of Montezuma kill whites as wanton boys kill flies. So again, what does this tell us about the people who think Trump’s statement was “outrageous”? It tells us that those people want whites to be exterminated by whatever means possible. Isn’t the slaughter of whites by homegrown negroes enough? Must we invite Aztecs in to help the negroes? “Yes,” the liberals tell us, “we must.”

Let’s play pretend. If the United States was a real nation, consisting of white Christians, we would declare war on Mexico and treat the invading army of Mexicans as all invading armies should be treated. We would repel the invasion by whatever means necessary. Nor would we permit fifth-column Mexicans to remain in our nation. A sane Christian policy of self-defense, the defense of our own people, would infuriate devout anti-Christian, anti-white zealots such as Pope Francis, who wants the United States and the people of Italy to have no borders while he reserves the right to demand border control in Argentina, but a Christian Goth should expect fierce opposition from liberal jackals such as Pope Francis.

It was the belief of our European ancestors that a man didn’t leave the pagan virtues behind when he became a Christian. The pagan loved his own, the people of his own hearth and his own race, and the Christian also loved his kith and kin, but with a greater intensity than the pagan, because now the European’s love was connected to the God-Man. That they loved their people became the mark of the Christian Europeans. The new mark of the modern Europeans is that they hate their own kind with a passionate intensity and love the murderous colored stranger, because he hates what the modern Europeans hate – the white race.

The terrible, terrible aspect of every white confrontation with Aztecs, blacks, Asians, and red Indians is that white people are always on the defensive, always on their knees pleading to be released from the charge of racism. But what does this charge of racism mean? And why are the colored races never guilty of racism? The charge of racism amounts to this: White people once considered themselves the Christ-bearing people. They built Christian civilizations in Europe and even took the cross of Christ to the colored lands and built Christian civilizations in heathendom. The colored heathens rejected the light, but they were forced to comply with many of the ethical demands of the white man’s religion, because the white man was stronger than the colored heathen. Then the reptilian creatures of darkness emerged – the liberals. The liberals joined with the colored heathen to destroy the white race. Thus far only the liberals and the colored heathens are fighting in this war of evil against the good, which is the reason it is more of a slaughter than a war.

The Confederate flag “controversy” is a classic case in point of white capitulation. The defenders of the flag say, “We are not racist; the flag is part of our heritage.” But that is not a defense. If your heritage is evil, you have no right to your heritage, and the liberals insist that the white Southerners’ heritage is evil, because it is ‘racist’. And it is racist! The flag represents the white, Christian European at his best, fighting for white, Christian civilization:
This other thing for which we fought was the supremacy of the white man’s civilization in the country which he proudly claimed his own; “in the land which the Lord his God had given him;” founded upon the white man’s code of ethics, in sympathy with the white man’s traditions and ideals. Our forefathers of the forties and fifties and sixties believed that if slavery were abolished, unless the black race were deported from the American States, there would result in the Southern States just such a condition of things as had resulted in San Domingo, in the other West Indies Islands, and in the so-called republics of Central and South America – namely, a hybridization of races, a lowering of the ethical standard, and a degradation, if not loss, of civilization. . . . Slavery is lost, and it is certainly well for us and the public –perhaps for the negro – that it has been lost. But the real cause for which our ancestors fought back of slavery, and deemed by them to be bound up in the maintenance of slavery – to wit, the supremacy of the white man’s civilization, the supremacy of the ethical culture, which had been gradually built up through countless generations – has not been lost.
John Sharp Williams
Now it has been lost. And begging the enemy to stop calling you racist is no way to regain that which is lost. The Europeans are guilty before God of every sin under the sun, except the one sin they are accused of, racism. Is it racist to bring charity and mercy to colored heathens who never even had a name for charity and mercy? Is it racist to subdue the colored heathen and defend your own people, and the weaker element among the colored heathen, against the onslaught of the merciless, colored savages? Yes, it is racist, if racist means placing that charity-of-honor culture of the white man above and against the savagery of colored heathendom and the darkness of Liberaldom. Now that white Christian ‘racists’ no longer rule the world, is it a better place for whites? Is it a better place for the colored heathen? We are told by all the powers that be in church and state that this modern Babylon is a better world than Christian Europe. But there is a huge lie at the center of the liberals’ apologia pro Babylon: “Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name.” The antique Europeans, for all their sins, which we do not deny, knew His name, and the modern Babylonians and their colored demigods do not know His name. From whence comes deliverance from evil if we do not know Him? It does not come, which is why evil reigns supreme in the countries that once constituted Christian Europe.

In the state of Oregon, an Evangelical Christian couple who owned a small bakery were fined $135,000 by a federal judge for refusing to cater a lesbian wedding. There are plenty of other bakeries that would cater such a wedding, but the lesbians chose that particular bakery because it is not enough that Satan is triumphant; we are all required to celebrate his triumph. The sodomites, the Mexicans, the negroes, and all the colored people of the world are welcome at the liberals’ white-hating festival. And white Christians must attend; they must celebrate their own demise and watch the last remnants of Christian Europe be consumed in the liberals’ multicultural bonfire.

Long before the RICO Act went into effect, which made it illegal to protest in front of abortion clinics, I used to protest outside abortuaries. Once when I was attempting to convince a black woman not to abort her baby, she cursed me by calling me a f—ing European. What a perceptive curse! Of course I am a European; to truly live up to the European honor code is all in all. Abortion is legal, Mexicans invade our nation, Moslems invade Europe, the Battle Flag has been removed from the Southern state capitals, homosexuality is celebrated, and the negro has replaced Christ, because the European is afraid to be a European. He acts as if his whiteness is a shameful disease, something he must atone for by divesting himself of his whiteness by betraying his race – through negro worship and the complete and total surrender to every anti-white -ism that comes along.

The new age of liberalism is upon us. It is no longer a time for dialogue. The liberals dialogued when abortion was illegal, when there were still some segregated neighborhoods, and when homosexuals didn’t have the same rights as heterosexuals. Now the liberal perverts and their colored minions no longer dialogue; they attack and destroy. These monsters can only be fought; they cannot be reasoned with or voted away. One thing is needful: Europeans must stop being reasonable, they must stop apologizing for being white. Every evil under the sun has come upon the European people, because we abandoned our European hearth fire for a multicultural theory of liberty, equality, and fraternity. There is no liberty when the negro replaces Christ, there is only a merciless negro-worshipping tyranny. There is no fraternity when the European leaves his white brethren to whore after the colored barbarians. And there is no such thing as equality; some are always more equal. It should be the Christ-bearing people who are more equal, because their reign has that charity of honor at its core while the reign of the techno-barbarian liberals and the colored barbarians has Satan at its core.

The white European has had a reverse Pelagianism thrust upon him. The liberals are without sin because they have renounced whiteness, and the colored barbarians are without sin because they are not white. The white man should never respond to his instincts, the liberals command, because the white man’s instincts are evil. Instinctual whites go into black churches and gun down blacks, that is what instinctual whites do. Liars! Prejudiced white men, the white men whose white Christian instincts were bred-in-the-bone built Christian Europe, and they are the only type of men who can stand athwart the mountain pass and defy the Babylonian armies of Satan.

The Europeans of long ago knelt at the foot of the cross and wept. They wept and they believed. With “By the Cross We Conquer” as their rallying cry they conquered the world for Christ. And now we witness fiendish Satanists such as Pope Francis apologizing for the Europeans of old who carried the cross of Christ to the heathen lands. Such anti-Christians who denigrate our one sure link to Christ, the antique Europeans, are in league with the negro-worshipping liberals, the sodomites, and the colored barbarians. And the one unifying passion in the seemingly disparate group of whore-mongers and barbarians is a hatred for the incarnate Lord Jesus Christ. With every papal denunciation of the Christian Europeans, with every gay wedding, with every negro-worshipping festival, and with every new Aztec murder of whites, the unholy coalition cheers, because they have thrown another spear into Christ’s body. Burke said it best:
The rebels to God perfectly abhor the Author of their being. They hate him “with all their heart, with all their mind, with all their strength.” He never presents himself to their thoughts but to menace and alarm them. They cannot strike the sun out of Heaven, but they are able to raise a smouldering smoke that obscures Him from their own eyes. Not being able to revenge themselves on God, they have a delight in vicariously defacing, degrading, torturing, and tearing in pieces His image in man.
The defacing, degrading, torturing, and tearing in pieces of His image in man will only increase until the Christian Goths return to their ancestral home and cleanse it of Satan’s minions. Should the defense of Christian Europe be left to courageous pagans such as Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump? For shame. It is time for Christian Europeans to rise and ride.