Sep 11, 2015

Towards a True Economic Third Position

via traditionalRIGHT

There are at present many efforts to create a third position in economics, most of which go from the spectrum of kooky voodoo economics such as Social Credit Theory on the right and Participatory economics on the left, and essentially socialists in third position clothing such as syndicalism and fascism. The goal of this essay is not to deconstruct these false third position models, but to offer a true third position. This will essentially be similar to distributism, though I have some objections to distributism as it is now popularly formulated. For more on that see my essay “Rethinking Christian Economics.”

The Biblical Economic Model

When we discuss what economic model we should have we first need to discuss what is the nature and end of man. If man has no nature and/or no end, then any old system should work since man would be infinitely malleable and able to fit into any system with sufficient conditioning, ergo none would be better than another. This I reject. I agree with the Shorter Westminster Catechism that, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.” I will not attempt in this article to give justifications for this assumption, merely assume it as the first principle of anthropology.

If we accept this basic principle of anthropology, we then look to the Bible to see what end God directs us to. If we use biblical principles we see that many forms of economic action are condemned as sin. The most significant change would be the outlawing of usury. We see prohibitions in Leviticus 25:36-37; Nehemiah 5:7-10; Psalms 15:5; Proverbs 28:8; Ezekiel 18:8-17; Ezekiel 22:12. We see in Psalms 28:8 and Ezekiel 22:12 that God views usury as akin to extortion. There was an exception for Jews to lend money to gentiles at usury in Deuteronomy 23:20. I believe that Christ in his Parable of the Good Samaritan where the term neighbor is expanded to include not only Jews, but also gentiles closed that gap, since exchanging usury is not a form of love. We see in Luke 6:35 that Christ demands we do not lend expecting anything in return. With such evidences I think that the Gentile loophole has been closed to a complete prohibition on charging of usury.

We see in Psalms 24:1 that God owns the earth which implies that property taxes are immoral since the government has no right to extract profit from what it does not own. Eminent domain (legalized state theft of property) is immoral where we see Ahab and Jezebel in 1st Kings 21 first murdering Naboth and then stealing his property, which was given to him as a trust by his father. As we see in Proverbs 13:22 that one should leave an inheritance for one’s children which would imply that the death tax and inheritance tax is immoral. We see in Numbers 36 the right of women to inherit property. From 1st Timothy 5:3-16, in which Paul exhorts families to take care of their elders and if the widow has no family or their family is unable to care for them then the church should do so, we can derive the principle of subsidiarity: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.” Socialism is fundamentally evil in that, insofar as it destroys private property and establishes a welfare regime, one is correspondingly less able to maintain one’s elders.

Private property is the bedrock of civilization, as Aristotle observed, men take better care of what they possess and that private property facilitates two virtues: continence and liberality. Based on the principle that no man can live in isolation for only animals and gods can live self-sufficiently in isolation, Aristotle argues that people come together to form families and families come together to form states (in his case city-states). We see that in capitalism the individual is the focus of the economy, in socialism the collective, and in distributism the family. The family is the smallest self-sufficient unit in society and thus is the wellspring of society. The word economics comes from the two Greek words Oikos (Household) and Nomos (Law). We see that historically economics was concerned with providing enough for each household to take care of its needs. This principle of self-sufficiency is the foundation of further civilizational development and as such the economy should seek to encourage self-sufficiency. In Joshua 14 and 15 we see that God desires tribes (extended households) to have land to be self-sufficient. In fact that land is not to be sold; for with the implementation of Jubilee every 50 years and the story of Naboth, we see that God desired the dispersion of property not its concentration.

How do we Get There?

Clearly our current economic model is not distributism and is a mixture of capitalism and socialism with seemingly the worst of both. I propose three possible methods used individually or in conjunction that could allow a transition from our current mixed-economy to a distributist economy: (1) prosecuting firms for criminal action and restoring to the victims fourfold (Luke 19:8); (2) the example shown in the Peasant’s Land Bank, and (3) the Land-to-Tiller Program.

I propose that firms that have engaged in criminal action be prosecuted and their assets be redistributed to the aggrieved parties fourfold, what I call the Lazarus Plan. This would work to divest the corporations of their ill-gotten gain and serve to chip away at concentrated wealth.

The Peasant’s Land Bank was an effort by secretary of finance Nikolai Bunge to give the peasants access to credit to purchase land from the Boyars (nobles) and in conjunction with this effort Stolypin realized that the lack of a middle class would only aid in the fomenting of rebellion and economic stagnation. After seeing the Revolution of 1905 he correctly identified the need for agrarian form. Seeing that a middle class is founded on independent property holders they sought to purchase land from the boyars to distribute the land back to the peasants. While marred by corruption and inefficiencies the process was largely successful, and by 1913 the bank had helped the peasants acquire 46 million acres. For more on the Peasant’s Land Bank and other Russian agrarian reforms see Russian Peasants and Village Lands, 1861-1917: A Summary Compiled by Alan Kimball.

In Taiwan’s Land to the Tiller Program, property was peacefully and lawfully transferred from the Chinese landlords to the peasants. Chaing’s land reform can be understood in four parts: (1) leasing to the peasants land owned by the government, (2) reduce rent to 37.5%, (3) selling government land to peasants, (4) Land to the Tiller Program. The Land to the Tiller program transferred land from the landlords to the peasants by compensating the value of the property from the landlords with 70% of the price being paid in rice and potatoes and the remaining 30% in stocks in rising government firms.

There are many possible peaceful and lawful means by which to transfer property in a more equitable way to the people without the needless bloodshed demanded by lunatic socialists and anarchists.

How Do We Stay There?

I have basically two means by which this property regime can be maintained. Firstly, I accept Aristotle’s notion that while man’s desires are potentially infinite, the number of goods available in the world are finite, and that man’s desires should be curtailed by education. So we begin by educating people to be content with what they need. As a practical legal method I argue for a return of biblical Sabbath year and Jubilee. We see in Deuteronomy 15:1-6 that every seven years (Sabbath Year) the tribes of Israel were required by God to free slaves, admittedly only Hebrew slaves, and forgive debts. In Leviticus 25:8-12 we see that land should be returned to its original owner. In practical terms Jubilee could be modeled in using the concept of usufruct. I will use the Investopedia definition of usufruct:
“A legal right accorded to a person or party that confers the temporary right to use and derive income or benefit from someone else’s property. Usufruct is usually conferred for a limited time period or until death. While the usufructuary has the right to use the property, he or she cannot damage or destroy it, or dispose of the property.”
If we consider limiting the time period to fifty years I think we have a rough approximation of usufruct-Jubilee contract.


I assert that third position economics on both the right and the left goes from either kookiness or socialism. I propose an alternative biblical/Aristotelian distributism model. I have provided a few possibilities by which our current property regime can be legally transformed into this new property regime, and how such a regime can be maintained, which is more than any anarcho-socialist on the Left or social credit theorist on the Right can do.

Aid to Refugees: Is it Good for the Jews?

via The Occidental Observer

From Francis Carr Begbie’s “Immigrant flood unleashes moral status competition, emotional incontinence and hypocrisy“:
There can be little doubt that the Jewish community favors very generous policies toward refugees. One reason for this is that Jews tend to see the situation in terms of the Jewish experience as refugees during World War II rather than from the point of view of the present interests of the UK and its people. That non-Jewish countries should be open to refugees is widely, if not universally, seen as a basic Jewish interest. Deep in the Jewish psyche is the memory of the voyage of the St. Louis in May, 1939 in which Jewish refugees from Europe were not admitted to Cuba and the U.S. did nothing because of pervasive anti-immigration attitudes at the time.
Indeed, there is no question that Jews were under intense pressure during the 1930s that went well beyond the U.S. In 1936 Chaim Weizmann observed that “the world seems to be divided into two parts—those places where the Jew cannot live, and those where they cannot enter” [1]. Anti-Semitism was pervasive. Jewish pressure groups acknowledged the role of anti-Semitism in motivating the rejection of Jews by, for example, couching pro-refugee advertising in universalist terms and not mentioning that the refugees would be Jews.

With that brief historical background, it comes as no surprise that European Jewish organizations are advocating generous policies toward refugees (JTA: “European Jews, mindful of risks, urge aid to refugees“).  Their perceptions are framed by their experiences in the 1930s. As always, the policies advocated for European countries are couched in terms of Jewish attitudes and interests, not the legitimate interests of Europeans to retain their cultures and demographic status:
When he looks into the tired eyes of the Syrian refugees now flooding Europe’s borders, Guy Sorman is reminded of his father, Nathan, who fled Germany for France just months before Adolf Hitler came to power.
“He wanted to go to the United States. Visa declined. He tried Spain, same result. He ended up in France, neither welcome nor deported,” Sorman wrote last week in an Op-Ed in Le Monde in which he argued that Europe should learn from its abandonment of the Jews during the Holocaust and accommodate the stream of migrants pouring through its borders from the war-torn Middle East.
Sorman’s view is not uncommon among European Jews, many of them living in societies still grappling with a sense of collective guilt for their indifference to the Nazi genocide — or complicity in it. At a Holocaust memorial event in Paris on Sunday, French Chief Rabbi Haim Korsia urged Europe’s leaders to match the actions of non-Jews who saved Jews from the Nazis by welcoming Syrian refugees.
So once again, the experience of Jews prior to and during World War II is being used as a touchstone for how Europeans should act now. The actions of Europeans should be motivated by guilt over what happened ~80 years ago, and that guilt should trump any concern with the effects of immigration on social cohesion, unemployment, crime, and welfare costs — not to mention the ethnic genetic interests of Europeans.

There is a complete lack of contextualization here. The claim is that Europe has a special obligation to refugees because of past restrictions on immigrants and refugees. But besides the very real anti-Jewish attitudes during the period, the crisis occurred during the Great Depression, a time of very high unemployment throughout the West. The article from the USHMM on the St. Louis affair cited above notes that during this period 83% of the U.S. public opposed immigration, and that unemployment in the U.S. was an issue. Admitting Jews was politically non-viable for President Roosevelt.

But besides unemployment, there were negative attitudes specifically about Jewish immigration motivated by the fact that Jews were widely and correctly perceived to be much more likely to be politically radical as well. Far left radicalism was entirely mainstream in the Jewish community during this period and  was a major factor in motivating the immigration restriction law of 1924. Indeed, Jewish organizations went to great lengths to alter the public stereotype of Jewish subversion and disloyalty, particularly as evidenced by membership in the Communist Party USA and other far left organizations. In the 1920s, the fact that Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe were viewed as “infected with Bolshevism . . . unpatriotic, alien, unassimilable,” contributed to restrictive immigration legislation.[2] Jewish publications warned that the leftism of Jewish immigrants would lead to anti-Semitism. The official Jewish community engaged in “a near-desperation . . . effort to portray the Jew as one hundred per cent American” by organizing highly visible patriotic pageants on national holidays and urging the immigrants to learn English.[3]

In other words, Americans viewed Jewish immigration from the standpoint of their legitimate economic and social interests. There is a sort of reverse analogy going on today, as immigration policy throughout the West has not been geared to the economic benefit of receiving countries — importing millions of uneducated, low IQ people as legal and illegal immigrants who are prone to high levels of welfare use. (Jewish attitudes on immigration at least since the 1950s have rejected economic benefit as a criterion for immigration; see here, pp. 277–278.) It has also included groups that, like radical Jews during the 1920s and 1930s, remain unassimilable and hostile to the people and culture of the receiving countries. The latter is particularly the case with the current Muslim onslaught in Europe.

Contemporary Jewish attitudes also ignore the role of Jewish organizations and the Israel Lobby in fomenting the destabilizing wars in the Middle East that have led to a very real humanitarian crisis throughout the region — a crisis that is certainly not reasonably or fairly solved by giving permanent citizenship in Europe to the displaced millions, with many millions more to come given the chronic instability not only of the Middle East but also Africa — not to mention the simple fact that European countries, particularly many northern European countries (but not Denmark) have generous welfare policies, which provide for a higher standard of living than available for most people in Third World countries.

And finally, there is no mention of the policy of Israel which has been to build a wall with Syria and deport migrants while claiming that, as a small country, there is no room for refugees. In fact, Israel has admitted hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees and immigrants over the years, including 29,500 immigrants in the past year alone. Surely these very empathic Jewish activists should pressure Israel to do the same. Helping refugees is not a “Jewish value” independent of time and place, but very specifically tailored to meet Jewish interests in particular contexts.

From the perspective of Jewish organizations and most Jews, Israel, but not Europe, is absolved from pathologically altruistic behavior toward refugees — pathological in the very real sense that this behavior compromises their legitimate long-term interests. For Europe to insist on any sense of ethnic or cultural integrity is seen as the epitome of evil, a shirking of moral obligations to “humanity,” and tantamount to endorsing the Holocaust, a message that constantly rains down from the elite media throughout the West. But retaining the ethnic and cultural integrity of Israel as a Jewish state is the first and foremost priority of Israel’s leaders and diaspora Jews as well.

The JTA article portrays Jewish concern for refugees as especially selfless because Jews are aware that many of these migrants have anti-Jewish attitudes.
“As Eastern European Jews, we carry the knowledge of how it feels like to flee our homes,” said Zoltan Radnoti, the newly elected chairman of the rabbinical board of the Mazsihisz umbrella group of Hungarian Jewish communities. “Still, I help the refugees with fear that I am helping send danger to other Jews in Europe. I know some of the refugees may have fired on our [Israeli] soldiers. Others would have done so in a heartbeat. I know. But I am duty bound to help.”
Another interviewee is
aware that statistically, Middle Eastern immigrants are responsible for most of the violence driving French Jews to leave in record numbers — nearly 7,000 in 2014 alone. But “when you look into their eyes, the refugee issue stops being a demographic issue,” she said.
But is admitting these people as European citizens really opposed to Jewish interests? As often stated here, Jews in the diaspora tend to see their interests in terms of their perception of European history, and first and foremost is the perception that racially conscious, racially homogeneous Germany turned against Jews during the National Socialist period. Lack of racial/ethnic homogeneity in diaspora countries is therefore seen as making Jews safer in the long run (see, e.g., here, p. 246), and Jewish intellectual movements have successfully portrayed ethnocentrism among Europeans as a pathology.

The fact is that Jewish organizations in the West have been aware for some time that many non-White immigrants have anti-Jewish attitudes or are at least likely to be far less sympathetic to Jewish issues, such as Israel and the Holocaust (see “The ADL: Managing White rage“). But these organizations have universally continued to advocate for high levels of immigration and altruistic refugee policies while simultaneously advocating intensification of police-state type controls on thought and behavior to ensure Jewish security (see Andrew Joyce’s “On the return of the protected Jewish minority in Europe“). Having your cake and eating it too.

In short, the mainstream view among Jews is that the transformation of Europe is manageable for Jews. And if some non-elite Jews, like the 7,000 who left France for Israel in 2014 noted above, are motivated to emigrate to Israel because of street-level hostility toward Jews by Muslims, this will not impact Jewish elites in Europe who are not at all likely to leave and will continue to be a critical force in favor of the dissolution of traditional European cultures and the displacement of European peoples. Jewish power and influence in the West has never rested on numbers.

Moreover, the most important components of Jewish intellectual and political activism in the West beginning early in the twentieth century have been opposition to nationalism and populism and displacing previous elites in European and European-derived countries like the U.S. Admitting non-European immigrants to Europe is thus part of that overarching Jewish strategy.

The strategy is working very well and will not be abandoned by our hostile elites unless Europeans stand up and demand change in the face of elite opinion.


  1. Abella, I., & H. E. Troper (1981). “The line must be drawn somewhere”: Canada and Jewish refugees, 1933–1939. In The Canadian Jewish Mosaic, ed. M. Weinfeld, W. Shaffir, & I. Cotler. Toronto: Wiley, 51.
  2. Neuringer, S. M. (1971). American Jewry and United States Immigration Policy, 1881–1953. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms; reprinted by Arno Press (New York), 1980, 165.
  3. Ibid., 167.

White Rage

via BUGS

The black rage is their defense.

Now when the young guy in Charleston did his shootings, they instantly convicted me which gave us lots of publicity.

The guy who just did the Jewish Center killings has just been convicted. At the beginning of his closing argument he put up on the whiteboard that “Diversity is a code word for White Genocide”.

But oddly enough, nobody came after me.
One explanation for this is, the same reason they put it off with CNN, they can’t deal with me.

But all this has made me consider White Rage.

If a black man runs around killing white people, it’s because of oppression.

Now if we have white guys out killing, In The Name Of White Genocide, it may be a warning.

Isolated Black killings of whites are the result of a legitimate “Black Rage”.

So isolated killings In The Name Of Genocide, may mean that instead stopping all discussion of White Genocide, the White Rage may indicate that’s exactly what we need to discuss. Or are we going to just have people keep picking up guns?

At the moment we’ve had very isolated incidents, two of them, but should we not consider White Rage?

There is no excuse for anybody just shooting other people, on a basis like this, but it may signify that we are going to have to discuss the real issue. And that does not mean with in the current bounds.

So maybe we should start looking at these isolated two killings as White Rage.

And a warning.

On Tone Policing of the Right: The Reason for the #NRORevolt

via TradYouth

Madonna first squirmed around squealing about being a virgin on MTV’s Video Music Awards stage when I was merely a toddler. Madonna was already in her late twenties at the time, and was certainly no virgin. Decades later, the sixty year old woman is still squirming around trying to arouse and shock people. So are the VMAs, still awkwardly humping the wrecking ball that they’re taking to the ruins of American culture with Miley Cyrus this year.

Things got ugly this year when Nicki Minaj escalated her tiff with the half-naked hostess by going ghetto on her live and off-script. For all her herculean efforts to the contrary, Miley could not have looked more “white” when the sassy Black Nicki refused to be “tone policed.”

White Advocates may be inclined to reflexively side with Hannah Montana, but I’m firmly on Team Nicki. Miley had been scolding Nicki about her tone rather than addressing her allegations of racism in the VMA nomination process for weeks leading up to the ceremony.
“If you do things with an open heart and you come at things with love, you would be heard and I would respect your statement,” Cyrus said about Minaj’s tweets. “But I don’t respect your statement because of the anger that came with it … What I read sounded very Nicki Minaj, which, if you know Nicki Minaj is not too kind. It’s not very polite.”
Trust me, I don’t agree with the point Nicki Minaj was trying to make about the VMA selection board supposedly being a holdout of White Supremacy. That point is indeed stupid. But Miley wasn’t disagreeing with that point; she was condescendingly disagreeing with how she said it. Tone policing is the disingenuous debate tactic of disregarding the topic in favor of the tone.

The #NRORevolt campaign against National Review is a revolt against their tone policing. Jonah Golberg’s article about Donald Trump was what triggered it, but the revolt against National Review is much bigger than Goldberg, the Trump phenomenon, or even the neocon takeover of the magazine over the past couple decades. From its very inception, National Review was founded by William F. Buckley as a vehicle for controlling the content of the conservative movement by feigning a high-minded concern for its tone.

Buckley didn’t challenge the substance of the John Birch Society’s paleoconservative arguments. He dismissed them all as lacking in respectability and gravitas. For the National Review, Birchers were a class of ideologues whose ideas were beneath discussion because they had the wrong tone. Buckley cleverly and effectively played on the status insecurities of middle-class WASP conservatives by feigning an aristocratic bearing and insisting that men with an aristocratic bearing all think in his consistently compromising antiquarian libertarian manner.

National Review played a pivotal role–perhaps the pivotal role–in transforming the Right from a movement with ideas to a status-signaling charade of fashionable posturing through a series of purges of any and all men who dared to insist on unfashionable Rightist ideals. Buckley appeared to achieve what no other “conservative” could, which is win the praise and respect of Leftists. This apparent anomaly was actually no anomaly at all, but a demonstration of his ability to win over the Right with style and win over the Left with substance.

Buckley is no longer around to manage this tone policing tightrope act, and it shows. He would have likely kept some harmless domesticated paleoconservative outliers like Robert Weissberg and John Derbyshire around. Buckley understood precisely how to lull the monster of White Identity asleep, and how to serve the Jewish agenda without making it too obvious that he’s cuckolding his readership. Buckley had a keen enough instinct for politics to have seen that some kind of populist uprising against libertarian wonkery and neocon cuckoldry was imminent, and he would have known better than to directly head butt Donald Trump’s populist insurgency.

In the absence of Buckley, you have the same actors as before, a bunch of Chamber of Commerce hacks kvetching about lowering taxes for rich people, partisan hacks playing red team/blue team grabass, and Zionist hacks engaging in thinly veiled ethnic advocacy for their “invade the world/invite the world” agenda. What you lack in his absence is a charismatic and congenial ringleader to persuade the audience that the carnival of corruption was a fancy and respectable conservative affair.

The flagship publication remains in publication despite being unprofitable on the fumes of its legacy, but the national conversation has left National Review behind. I don’t even know if Buckley himself could have managed to keep a cork on White American frustration at this point. We’re done being lied to. We’re done being condescended to. We’re done being politically cuckolded, and we’re not going to watch our tone.

Jonah Goldberg and the rest of the Trotskyite entryists at the National Review can fire their label gun at us all they want. Call us “anti-semites,” call us “fascists,” call us “isolationists,” call us “inbred,” and call us “peckerwoods.” They’ve tried everything over the last few days on Twitter and a very magical thing has happened in the conservative movement in America; they’ve stopped caring about being called names. Donald Trump is the current avatar of this sea change in conservative attitude, but this whole thing is even more yuuuuge than The Donald.

The SPLC has busted me around thirty times for being a big scary bigot, and I’ve even been known to sip from a swastika-emblazoned coffee mug. But the majority of the men on twitter and the NRO comment section are ordinary conservatives who’ve simply had it with being cucked. If the National Review staff and others keep calling them anti-semitic for objecting to their agenda of gifting our jobs to foreigners, gifting our citizenship to invaders, and gifting our soldiers to Israeli warmongers, the sharper ones may just make the connection; and they won’t watch their tone when they do.

Treason Is Trending

via Age of Treason

Listen Now

Concerning the invasion of Europe, the US election cycle, and Donald Trump. The links below include the most significant articles and events discussed, along with the most relevant aspects of my previous commentary and analysis. All of it is connected to what I refer to here as the fundamental fraud of Western politics: the false idea that jews are White.

Links for the invasion of Europe (#refugeecrisis) highlighting the jewish narrative behind it:

Syria’s Refugees Feel More Welcome in Europe Than in the Gulf – Bloomberg Business

When Jewish people look at Calais migrants, we see ourselves | Laura Janner-Klausner | Comment is free | The Guardian

OPINION – Closing Europe’s borders is not the right answer to the refugee crisis :: World Jewish Congress

Is Branding Migrants a Shameful Throwback to Holocaust? – Breaking News –

Refugee crisis: ‘Love the stranger because you were once strangers’ calls us now | Jonathan Sacks | Comment is free | The Guardian

Recalling Shoah, European Jews Urge Aid to Refugees – Breaking News –

Jewish Groups Lead Push To Crack Open Doors to Syria Refugees – News –

There’s No Stopping a Mass Migration That Will Alter the World – Opinion – Haaretz

Netanyahu: Israel ‘too small’ to absorb Syrian refugees | Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Merkel condemns ‘disgusting’ message of hate toward refugees | Reuters

Two examples of jews doing what jews do best – the constant backdrop, whatever else is going on. First, jews teach their children to clearly distinguish themselves from their primary host-enemies (Whites/Europeans):

Three-year-old ultra-Orthodox Jewish children told ‘the non-Jews’ are ‘evil’ in worksheet produced by London school – Education News – Education – The Independent

Meanwhile, “assimilated” jews dissimulate as “white” to better psychopathologize such behavior in their White host-enemies and preach toxic anti-White abnegation instead:

10 Ways White Liberals Perpetuate Racism | George Sachs, Psy.D.

Hightlights of the anti-White/pro-jew “left” response to Trump:

Twenty Thousand Considered Disappointing Turnout for Racist Event in Alabama – The New Yorker

Worse Than Hitler | KUNSTLER

Donald Trump 2016: Mobile, Alabama rally and the ghost of George Wallace – POLITICO

Behind Trump, the GOP Really Is Becoming the Racist Party – The Daily Beast

The Republicans Are Now Officially the Party of White Paranoia | Rolling Stone

Donald Trump and white nationalism: Does the candidate’s rise represent the ascendency of a resentful white wing of the American right?

Trump the Fascist

Nazis and White Supremacists Love Donald Trump. You Know Who Else Nazis Loved? 
#NRORevolt, explained – Vox

Highlights of the anti-White/pro-jew #cuckservative #kikeservative “right” response to Trump:

Trump, Sanders, Immigration — Nationalism & Socialism | National Review Online
Donald Trump and the White Nationalists – The New Yorker

Are Republicans For Freedom or White Identity Politics?

Donald Trump’s Popularity — It’s Corrupting Conservatism| National Review Online

Donald Trump and the War on the Brains of the Right

Jonah Goldberg and the Anti-Trump Bourgeoisie – Breitbart

Some ill portents for the White supporters of future President Shitlord:
Trump: I Want a ‘Big, Fat, Beautiful, Open Door’ for Legal Immigrants – NBC News

Donald Trump: I don’t want David Duke’s endorsement – POLITICO

Sheldon Adelson Is Ready to Buy the Presidency — NYMag is a jewsmedia overview of the dominance jews (e.g. Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, etc) have over “the right”. Though the focus is on Sheldon Adelson the article touches on many aspects of jew rule. Among other things it refers to organized jewry organizing (across party lines) to counter and defeat the “anti-racist” blowback against Israel in the form of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction movement (BDS).

Obama’s Jewish problem: 10 principles that have guided his conversations with Jews about Israel.

“Jews, jews, jews! My head hurts!” Alex Jones debates David Duke 2015 08 18 full interview HQ – YouTube (mp3).

Related AoT podcasts and articles: Stupid/Crazy/Evil, Identity Politics, The Nature of Jewish Power – Part 2, Fear and Loathing and Treason – Part 1, Moral Fraud, Decoding Jew-Worship and Blasphemy, Anti-”Racism” is a Jewish Construct, Calling Out the Cuckery, Catching up with Kyle Hunt.

This just in, a transparent discussion of how the jews who fund “right” politics are hesitant to support Trump mainly because they so despise the Whites who will vote for him, whom they see not as a major demographic to appeal to, but as an obstacle to their agenda, a “more inclusive” (less White) party and country: Donald Trump’s Rise Sparks Widespread Angst Among Jewish Republicans – News –

What Is the American Right?

via Radix

Radix Editor's Note: This essay is the Foreword to The Great Purge, a Radix Journal volume edited by Paul Gottfried and Richard Spencer. In the light of #NRORevolt, it's worth revisiting. 

For those who are part of it, and for those who feel represented by it, the postwar American “conservative movement” has been a roaring success. More Americans openly identify themselves with “conservative” than any other political ideology.[1] There are more magazines, webzines, and publishing imprints that advocate the conservative cause than ever before. FOX News, the nation’s most-watched cable news channel, advertises itself as “fair and balanced,” but has long served as a platform for conservative journalists and opinion-makers. Underneath this edifice are innumerable bloggers and social-networking stars who echo the message. Estimating the total annual budget of “conservatism” would be a monumental task; it is certainly in the billions, comprising the election and management of Republican candidates, publications, networks, think-tanks, and lobbying efforts. Put simply, there is more “conservatism” now than there has ever been in American history.

Moreover, conservatives have achieved something that all movements and political parties lust after—consensus. From policy organizations to unpaid activists on Twitter, there is broad agreement on a constellation of issues and principles, including but not limited to the following:
  1. Free-market capitalism (or at least low taxes) as a moral and empirical good for all.
  2. Generic Christianity (with gestures towards other, presumably compatible, monotheistic faiths) as the foundation of patriotism, liberty, and human rights;[2]
  3. Staunch support for the U.S. military, with occasional
    criticisms of Washington’s foreign policies;
  4. Staunch support for the state of Israel, with unconditional support of its foreign policies;
  5. A “Values”-based conception of American history and identity.
This fifth element of the conservative consensus is likely its most peculiar and perplexing. For unlike conservatives and nationalists of other nations, American conservatives adamantly reject any ethnic component to their identity. American ideals, they profess, are universally applicable.[3] But at the same time, America is “exceptional,” which means that it is endowed with special responsibilities and abilities (which are not shared by other countries) to act in the name of its ideals.

The reader might detect a certain ironical or jaundiced quality to the presentation of these conservative essentials. Nevertheless, most every major conservative journalist and politician would endorse what is written above.

This is not to say that there are not intramural disputes within the movement. The Tea Party and Constitutionalist wing of conservatism will often buck the GOP establishment, or even openly attack it. The Ron Paul movement’s positions on foreign and monetary policies are such that they will never quite fit in. Finally, a left-libertarian strain exists that differs so strongly with conservatives on issues like gay marriage, sex, and drug policy that perhaps they should not be considered part of the grouping at all.

Nevertheless, what is important is that, to a remarkable extent, conservative disputes are over rhetoric, tactics, and emphasis and not over ideology. In the 1964 Republican Convention, one could say that the gap between the ascendant Goldwater conservatives and the mainline Party leaders (denigrated as the “Eastern Establishment”) was unbridgeable. This is simply not the case today. And fittingly the nominating Republican convention and major conservative activists gatherings resemble pageants. However heated a political rivalry might be—and however stridently the Tea Party might rage again “RINOs” (Republicans In Name Only)—the interlocking, complementary parts of conservatism constitute a political movement in an almost idealized form.

This volume was not conceived as a history of the postwar conservative movement. the nature of an essay collection is inherently perspectival: It privileges insights and themes over any single narrative or interpretative through-line. One could say that the history of conservatism has been written again and again . . . and not at all. Over the past three decades, dozens of tracts have been published chronicling the last 50 to 75 years of the movement. Most of these have come from within conservatism.[4] Whatever valuable information and insights they might provide, they remain history as cheer-leading or, in the case of biographies of the late William F. Buckley, history as eulogy and hagiography. Some histories of the movement have been critical, in the sense that they were issued from conservatives’ adversaries “across the aisle,” the Democratic Left. But these suffer from the same limitations of the former, only in reverse.[5]

The question remains: What is this movement, which has, for some half century, defined what is called “the Right”?

Conservative advocates frequently claim that in 1955 Buckley and the founders of National Review “invented” conservatism and rehabilitated a term that had become something like a slur. There are kernels of truth to this tale. Certainly, “conservative” could be a term of opprobrium, and it could also be used in surprising ways: Adlai Stevenson, the two-time Democratic nominee for the presidency (1952, ’56) referred to himself as a “conservative” in a quite positive sense.[6] What’s certainly true is that “conservatism” did not exist in its current distinctive form until the mid-20th century.

Self-described conservatives have offered little help in in reaching a definition. Much of this probably has to do with their professed allergy to ideology, a term they associate with European communists or fascists. Russell Kirk—the author of The Conservative Mind and a man who was featured in a 1956 Time cover story as one of America’s leading intellectuals[7]— defined “the conservative idea” in a self-consciously fuzzy manner:

“Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law.” “True politics,” Kirk wrote, “is the art of apprehending and applying the Justice which ought to prevail in a community of souls.” (From there, Kirk lists an additional “affection,” “conviction,” “persuasion,” “faith,” and “recognition.”)[8]

Kirk is frequently referenced as America’s arch “cultural conservative” and “traditionalist.” Kirk is a man, as the story goes, who seeks wisdom in Edmund Burke, not Richard Nixon, and is thus forever out of step with the “pragmatists” in Washington or on FOX. Such a characterization is apt in many ways. But on a deeper level, Kirk expressed something important and essential that would define all postwar conservatives, from intellectuals to media personalities to those at the center of political power. Kirk’s conservatism was, as he defined it, “values conservatism.”

In writing his justly famous diatribe against the French Revolution, Edmund Burke defended a people, a social hierarchy, and way of life he saw under threat. Kirk’s “Burkeanism,” on the other hand, was notable for being unencumbered by reality. Indeed, in defending the “values” of 18th-century British social classes, one wonders what exactly Kirk felt was at stake. In another way, Kirk’s “Burkeanism” was quite democratic, albeit in a way heavily disguised with ancient titles and garb: When it’s all about “values,” any American could adopt “Burkeanism” and become an aristocrat.[9]

Dialectically, the cloudiness of the “conservative idea” has been the source of its pragmatism and potency. “Values” conservatism has been flexible; it has been able to be repackaged and redefined in order to accommodate different social and political forces.

Buckley’s conservatism was a child of the Cold War and thus driven by the necessity of defining a “Christian West” in an all-or-nothing conflict with Communism. It was this necessity that, in the mid-‘60s, drove him to purge from the movement those who rejected America’s military involvement in Southeast Asia. (Later on, after even Buckley began to regret the Vietnam War, this was falsely remembered as an attack on “racists” and “anti-Semites.”[10])

From there, “conservative values” went for a ride. After Communism faded, conservatism could be used to justify Zionism, as well as the War on Terror or even the forced democratization of the entire globe.[11] In the 1950s, Buckley and National Review had sought an alliance with southerners, going as far as editorializing for segregation (at least by indirection).[12] By the 1980s, National Review could endorse Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights struggle as a stridently conservative cause.[13] By the 2000s, conservative values could be cited as a basis for gay marriage.[14] Und so weiter. . .

A central crucible in this strange evolution of the American Right has been “the purge”—that is, the expulsion, often in an explicit fashion, of views or individuals deemed outside the boundaries of the official Right.

This volume does not constitute a full chronicling of these purges, nor is it a collection of sob stories from the losing side, still less is it a plea for toleration of each and every viewpoint. It is, instead, an attempt at a phenomenological history of conservatism. It seeks to understand how its ideology (often euphemized as “timeless principles”) functioned within its historic context and how it responded to power, shifting conceptions of authority, and societal changes.

Through the purges-specifically, through the logic of the purges—we can glimpse what conservatism is not, those aspects of itself it has attempted to deny, mask, leave behind, and forget, and the ways in which memories can be reconstructed around new orthodoxies.


  1. According to a Gallup telephone poll, 38 percent of the public self-identify as “conservative”; 34 percent consider themselves “moderate”; and 23 percent, “liberal.” In the early ‘90s, “conservative” achieved a popularity of 43 percent. In turn, “liberal” has, over the past 20 years, advanced from 17 to almost a quarter of the population. Jeffrey M. Jones, “Liberal Self-Identification Edges Up to New High in 2013,” Gallup January 10, 2014, accessed January 15, 2015,
  2. From George W. Bush’s Second Inaugural Address (Washington, DC, January 20, 2005):
    That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before—ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Accessed January 15, 2015,
  3. From George W. Bush’s First Inaugural Address:
    America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens.” (Accessed January 15, 2015,
    From The Heritage Foundation’s report, “Why Is America Exceptional?” October 1, 2010:
    Every nation derives meaning and purpose from some unifying quality—an ethnic character, a common religion, a shared history. The United States is different. . . . As the English writer G.K. Chesterton famously observed, “America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed.” That creed is set forth most clearly in the Declaration of Independence, by which the American colonies announced their separation from Great Britain. The Declaration is a timeless statement of inherent rights, the proper purposes of government, and the limits on political authority. (Accessed January 15, 2015,
  4. See, for instance, Linda Bridges and John R. Coyne Jr. Strictly Right: William F. Buckley Jr. and the American Conservative Movement (New York: Wiley, 2007); Donald T. Critchlow, The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History (Cambridge, MA, 2007); Lee Edwards, The Conservative Revolution: The Movement That Remade America (New York: Free Press, 1999); George H. Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945, 30th Anniversary Edition (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute 2006 [1976]).
  5. See, for instance, Carl T. Bogus, Buckley: William F. Buckley Jr. and the Rise of American Conservatism; John Judis, William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives (New York: Simon Schuster, 1988); Sam Tanenhaus, The Death of Conservatism: The Movement and Its Consequences (New York: Random House, 2009).
  6. Steveson proclaimed: “The strange alchemy of time has somehow converted the Democrats into the truly conservative party of this country—the party dedicated to conserving all that is best, and building solidly and safely on these foundations.” See Richard Hofstader, “The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt,” The American Scholar, Winter 1954-55, accessed January 15, 2015,
  7. Time, June 11, 1956. See also, Newsweek, 28 March 1955, Time, 13 August 1955.
  8. Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2001 [1953]), 8-9.
  9. See Paul E. Gottfried, Conservatism in America: Making Sense of the American Right (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007), 8-23.
  10. See Gottfried, “The Logic of the Conservative Purges” in this volume.
  11. See Lee Congdon, “Wars to End War” in this volume.
  12. See “Why the South Must Prevail” August, 24, 1957, National Review. See also James P. Lubinskas, “The Decline of National Review,” American Renaissance, accessed January 15, 2015, news/2012/04/the-decline-of-national-review/.
  13. See Matthew Spalding, “King’s Conservative Mind,” February 7, 2002, National Review Online, accessed January 15, 2015,; William Bennett, “The Conservative Virtues of Dr. Martin Luther King,” The Heritage Foundation, November 5, 1993, accessed 15 January, 2015,
  14. See Theodore B. Olson, “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage,” Newsweek, January 8, 2010, accessed January 15, 2015,; Jon Huntsman, “Marriage Equality is a Conservative Cause,” The American Conservative, February 21, 2013, accessed January 15, 2015,

Transcendence and the Aristocratic Principle

via Gornahoor

The cause of all wars and revolutions—in a word, of all violence—is always the same: negation of hierarchy. ~ Valentin Tomberg
In the essay Transcendence and the Aristocratic Principle, published in Aristokratia III, Edwin Dyga gives us an excellent overview of traditional reactionary thinkers, that is, those of the “Old Right”. Specifically, he identifies the “Throne and Altar” as the essential criteria for civilization or, as we would say, the political power and spiritual authority in their proper relationship. He also touches on some so-called New Right thinkers, but, as far as I understand his point, they are defective in dealing with these criteria in a new way.

The opposite, then, of the Throne and Altar paradigm is “Revolution”. Mr. Dyga then identifies two propositions resulting from the rejection of the paradigm:
  • The spirit of the Revolution involves a rejection of an order symbolized by “Throne and Altar”
  • The ideology of the Revolution are demotic and materialist in essence
The first proposition is axiomatic, but the second requires an explanation. The two terms, demotic and materialist, are not connected by happenstance, but rather by necessity. Valentin Tomberg explains why:
Without an Emperor, there will be, sooner or later, no more kings. When there are no kings, there will be, sooner or later, no more nobility. When there is no more nobility, there will be, sooner or later, no more bourgeoisie or peasants. This is how one arrives at the dictatorship of the proletariat, the class hostile to the hierarchical principle which, however, is the reflection of divine order. This is why the proletariat professes atheism.
The demotic essence, therefore, is atheistic, anti-hierarchical, materialistic. Since there are New Right movements that themselves are atheistic, anti-hierarchical, and materialistic, this just shows the power the modernity holds over some minds. Such movements as typically “identitarian”, often on a biologically racial basis, which then becomes the defining paradigm rather than Throne and Altar. That is because such movements are themselves demotic and therefore unwilling to acknowledge or unable to recognize the hierarchy within the group itself.

Since the reader is urged to read the essay himself, we will be content to include a few traditional principles to aid in further developments along these lines.

Real and Ideal Relations

The philosopher Timothy Sprigge has given us the useful distinction between real and ideal relations. Real relations are related materially or historically; that is, there is a direction relationship on the horizontal plane. An ideal relationship is vertical; two ideas are not historically connected, yet they derive their similarity from the same transcendent principles.

So, for example, the Old Right derived from opposition to the French revolutionary spirit. Old Right thinkers are then Joseph de Maistre, de Bonald, Donoso Cortes as well as the more contemporary thinkers Mr. Dyga mentions. They are in a real relationship.

The New Right, on the other hand, is not in that tradition. Rather, it uses modern and post-modern thought to define a new understanding of the right that is not tied to the restoration of Throne and Altar. To the extent it that it defines a homologous alternative, it is in an ideal relationship to the Old Right. Specifically, it needs to define an alternative political power arrangement and a legitimate spiritual authority. Failing that, it devolves into a pale imitation of modernism.

An example is the Old and New Lefts. The Old Left saw the rejection of order solely in economic terms: the proletariat would take over the means of production. The New Left likewise sought a rejection of hierarchical order. However, they defined this first in racial terms, followed later by sexual relationships and so on. So, historically they arose from different motivations. However, since they are both revolutionary, demotic, and materialistic movements, they are in an ideal relationship to each other.


Julius Evola uses the term “homology” in a similar sense. For example, he recognizes three main civilizations descending from the Hyperboreans: the Vedic, the Greco-Roman pagan, and the Nordic-Roman medieval civilizations. In them, the same patterns repeat, i.e., they are homologous. For example, they are socially hierarchical with a spiritual, warrior, and producing classes. Georges Dumezil recognized this as common to Indo-European civilizations.

There is no need to belabor this here, since we have provided sufficient examples already. The point is that any new right movement needs to explain how the civilization it envisions is homologous to other traditional civilizations.

The Illusion of the Modern World

Mr. Dyga points out that
In this critique of the modernist world, Rene Guenon accordingly states that the foundational assumptions of the modern world are a contradiction of the cosmic order.
The real impact of this claim is seldom noted. First of all, the corollary is that the traditional world is based on the cosmic order. Hence, it is incumbent on all rebels and soi-disant “aristocrats of the soul” to understand what that order is and how it manifests in a particular place at a particular time.

The second corollary is that the modern world is unreal, as it is based on an illusion. Just as a chemist cannot deny the law that water boils at 100?, neither can a political scientist deny the cosmic order. Hence, the dispute between the modernist and the traditionalist is not an intellectual battle of ideas, but rather the difference between illusion and truth.

Degeneration or the Third Dimension

The real battle then is spiritual, not intellectual. Specifically, it is ultimately futile to try to trace the degeneration of civilization as a logical sequence of ideas, with one proposition leading to the next. This is just a form of historicism.

In fact, the degeneration begins in the people, or demos, themselves, not in the ideas they hold. Specifically, certain ideas can only take hold in minds that are already degenerate. The recognition of the spiritual or demonic origin of certain streams of thought constitutes the third dimension of history. Mr. Dyga also recognizes this, if not always consistently:
It is not the details that are of primarily interest to us but the animating force behind them, the current which emanates from an ephemeral realm yet whose force shapes the nature of temporal phenomena.

Quo Vadis

After all that theorizing, the temptation is to create a political program of some sort. How, then, can you arrive at the opposite of a revolution? It cannot be demotic (i.e., a mass movement); hence it requires an elite who understand the traditional principles and axioms. It cannot be atheistic or materialistic.

In his dialog with the New Right, Mr. Dyga walks a tightrope. If identity is primary, as the New Right presumes, then any spiritual movement is merely instrumental: it either supports or opposes the identity in question. Mt. Dyga tries, contrarily, to demonstrate that the hierarchical spiritual authority will create identity as a consequence. The principle of subsidiarity guarantees this. Historically, of course, this has been true. Christian Europe simultaneously repelled outsiders on the one hand, while simultaneously respected a Europe of 100 flags.

It was only the widespread rejection of Christianity, particularly in its most Traditional manifestation (specifically the Nordic-Roman Medieval Church), that threatened that understanding. To his credit, Mr. Dyga refutes the worst impulse of the New Right in a reasoned and calm manner. He often appeals to Julius Evola in rejecting the most absurd claims of zoological racism. Nevertheless, he recognizes that there are differences between peoples, but that they are the result of group spiritual and psychical/cultural factors.

When Peter was fleeing Rome to avoid persecution, he encountered the risen Christ. “Quo Vadis?” Jesus asked him. (“Where are you going?”) Peter replied, “Back to Rome.” That seems to be the response of Mr. Dyga.

Postscript on Tragedy

Since the essay refers to Jean Raspail’s Camp of the Saints, given the timing of current events, it merits a comment. Raspail’s book cannot be understand as a racist screed, but rather as a satire of the political and religious leaders of France. Curiously, life imitates art, and the events foreseen in the novel are actually coming to pass. There is even the South American pope that Raspail predicted. There are Asian refugees entering Europe by the hundreds of thousands. There are the same horrible scenes, both in the book and in life, of children drowning in the sea.

Yet, it goes on, whatever the cost. And the political and religious leaders speak the same words as though Raspail were feeding them their lines. The Tragedy of Life arises from certain features of the players, called “hamartia”, whether good, bad, or comic. While the audience can anticipate how the whole thing will play out, the actors are oblivious to the consequences of their decisions. They cannot do otherwise. That is the Tragedy.

The Migrant ‘Crisis’: Some Further Considerations

via Western Spring

I obtained a copy of the results of a YouGov opinion poll taken during the last week of February this year and it was interesting to me that even before the current ‘migrant crisis’ had erupted as fully as it has now, 75% of the people polled stated they thought immigration has been too high over the last ten years, and it struck me that this viewpoint diametrically opposes the impression of public opinion currently being projected by establishment propagandists in the mass media.

Even when the question asked was: “Thinking about different types of people who want to come and live in the UK, to what extent should … people fleeing persecution or war in other countries … be allowed to come and live in Britain?” the answers elicited showed that only 14% felt that we should let more in; whereas 58% thought we should allow in less, or no more that was current at the beginning of this year; and 14% felt we should let none in at all.

The stark disparity between the views on this issue expressed by establishment politicians and TV pundits, verses the British public is therefore glaring and would in my view merit some investigation.

Yvette Cooper 5In an attempt to shape public opinion recently, there has been widespread publicity given to statements made by establishment politicians, particularly those on the political left, who we understand have a vested interest in admitting the maximum number of immigrants of ethnic minority stock as possible, because such immigrants have been shown overwhelmingly to vote out of self-interest for left-wing candidates, primarily Labour candidates once they are here. For this reason we can understand why the likes of: Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall, Tim Farron, Sadiq Khan and Caroline Lucas might want to admit unlimited numbers of non-White immigrants, but in view of the fact that the migrants currently pressing to gain admittance to Europe are overwhelmingly Muslim, one wonders why Christian and Jewish leaders would similarly press for them to be admitted?

Ostensibly, one might imagine that in view of the enmity that exists between Israel and the Muslim world and in light of the anti-Jewish motivations behind the Charlie Hebdo killings recently, that leading Jews in particular would be especially worried by any change in immigrant policy that would allow more Muslims into Britain, especially as there is no selection currently taking place and there have been concerns expressed in other quarters that Islamist terrorists hiding amongst the migrant crowds might be gaining access to European countries.

It was surprising therefore when Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks was being interviewed on BBC2’s flagship current affairs programme, Newsnight, last week, that he advocated allowing refugees into Britain in a move reminiscent of the Kindertransport programme during World War Two, in which thousands of Jewish children and Rabbis were allowed to flee to Britain from alleged persecution in National Socialist Germany. While watching this TV programme it was not lost on me that interviewing Jonathan Sacks was Robert Peston, the BBC’s Economics editor and son of the Jewish economist and Labour Peer Maurice Peston, who describes himself as ‘culturally Jewish’. Furthermore, as the programme ended, I noticed that the Editor of Newsnight is former editor of the Guardian, Ian Katz, who according to Wikipedia, was “born into a Jewish family”.

Jonathan SachsDuring his interview with Robert Peston, Jonathan Sacks stated: “… some of the images that have emerged in the last few days have brought back images that we thought we’d never see again — you know a young child lying dead by the sea shore — people packed into transport ships, overloaded and capsizing. These take our mind way back to the Second World War, to the Holocaust. And it’s important to remember that one simple humanitarian gesture, Kindertransport, which rescued 10,000 Jewish children from Germany, only 10,000 out of six-million, but it lit a light in one of the darkest periods of history, and I hope that European countries will realise that the very ideals on which the European Union were founded, are being tested right now.”

I thought it was ironic that Sacks had to stretch his mind back to World War Two in order to remember images of desperate children being killed in a war zone, as someone with his knowledge of Israeli affairs must be only too well acquainted with images of dead Palestinian children being dug out of the rubble of Gaza following Israeli air-raids. The same could be said of Robert Peston, who omitted to pick the Rabbi up on this issue, and also Ian Katz, who as editor of the programme, might have urged Peston to direct the course of the interview differently.

Similarly, no-one thought to question the Chief Rabbi as to why it is that Benjamin Netanyahu the Prime Minister of Israel has ruled out any chance of Israel taking any of the current flood of refugees. Surely such a glaring double-standard by World Jewry — lecturing European countries on the moral imperative of taking in refugees — while not being prepared to take any themselves, should have been an obvious focus of enquiry for any objective interview?

Interestingly and as an illustration of just how incestuous relationships between key individuals within the BBC can be, Ian Katz was appointed Editor of Newsnight just a few months after the current head of BBC Television, Danny Cohen, took up his post.
Danny Cohen is married to Noreen Hertz, and their marriage ceremony in 2012 was conducted at Bevis Marks Synagogue in London by Lord Jonathan Sacks. Noreen Hertz is the great-granddaughter of Chief Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz, who together with Rabbi Solomon Schonfeld, his son-in-law, jointly persuaded the British government during World War Two to implement the Kindertransport programme that Jonathan Sacks referred to during his interview with Robert Peston. Oy, it’s a small world!

Jews 1In another story which appeared in the Independent this week, we were told following the initial leak by an un-named source, that Jewish children as young as three-years of age, are being told that “non-Jews” are “evil” in a Kindergarten worksheet handed out at ultra-Orthodox Jewish schools in north London.

A whistle-blower, who wished to remain anonymous, has apparently shown The Independent a worksheet given to boys aged three and four at the school. In it, children were asked to complete questions related to the holiday of 21 Kislev, observed by Satmer Jews as the day its founder and holy Rebbe, Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum, escaped the Nazis.

The document refers to Nazis simply as “goyim” – a disparaging term for gentiles, without differentiating in any way between gentiles generally and those who are anti-Jewish.

The Independent article goes on to quote Emily Green, who used to teach at the same Beis Rochel girls’ secondary school, but who now chairs an organisation called Gesher EU, which supports Jews — primarily Jewish women — who want to leave the ultra-orthodox Jewish community.

“It’s not uncommon to be taught non-Jewish people are evil in ultra-Orthodox Jewish schools. It is part of the prayers, teaching, their whole ethos,” she said.

Describing it as a form of “indoctrination”, Ms Green added:  “Psychologically, you become so afraid of the world out there after being taught how dangerous and bad and evil non-Jews are, that it makes it harder to leave.”

Independently translated from Yiddish for The Independent, the worksheet’s first question reads: “What have the evil goyim (non-Jews) done with the synagogues and cheders [Jewish primary schools]?” The answer in the completed worksheet reads: “Burned them.”

Another question asks: “What did the goyim want to do with all the Jews?” – to which the answer, according to the worksheet, is: “Kill them.”.

“It doesn’t explicitly refer to the Holocaust,” the source said. “It’s a document that teaches very young children to be very afraid and treat non-Jews very suspiciously because of what they did to us in the past.

“It’s not a history lesson – you can’t say that. It’s a parable that is actively teaching the children extremism, hatred and a fear for the outside world.”

It is stories of this kind that are timely reminders to us that while we Europeans may regard the Jews who live among us as harmless, innocent or innocuous members of our society, who just happen to have a peculiar religion, not all Jews feel the same way towards us. It is clear that within the various subsets of European Jewry there are groups who regard non-Jews with varying degrees of enmity and this could go some way to explain why organised Jewry exhibits a tendency to act in ways that are often in antipathy to the interests of the European host communities among whom they live.

We should not forget that prior to and during the early part of World War Two, Zionist groups collaborated with the German National Socialist government and supported the introduction of measures to make Jews feel unwelcome and under threat, with the intention that large numbers would emigrate to Palestine, thereby facilitating the foundation of the state of Israel.

Today, more than half a century later, still less than half of the World’s Jews live in Israel and therefore while it may at first seem inconceivable that Jewish leaders would advocate policies that might endanger diaspora communities, we can see why Zionist Jews might have what at times appears to be an ambivalent if not suicidal attitude towards such matters. If certain ultra-orthodox groups have always lived, and are prepared to continue living in a constant state of fear and enmity towards the society around them, then all very well and good, however if other groups don’t, they can always be persuaded to ‘make Aliyah’ and emigrate to Israel.

Once we begin to understand these issues, we can appreciate why the destruction of European societies through uncontrolled mass immigration can be a matter of supreme indifference to many Jewish leaders, not because they necessarily have a great desire to destroy our societies, but simply because they see no great need to sustain them.

Refuting Ethnonationalist Mendacity

via EGI Notes

"But Vox did seem to be saying that most White Americans would more likely than not identify with a single national-ethnic identity rather than the broader racial identity White"

That's the sort of nonsense that I've spent years refuting over and over again, apparently to no avail.

There are solid reasons for differences in the "success" (*) of ethnoracial nationalism between the USA and Europe, other than the majestic "superiority" of narrow ethnonationalism. These include but are not limited to:

1. The greater professionalism and competence of leadership and membership cadres in Europe.

2. Within Europe itself, continental Europe has always had more developed nationalist parties and movements than the UK, for reasons which are likely deeply rooted in cultural and historical phenomena. The overseas anglosphere, including the USA, have seemed to inherit the more muted propensity for nationalism of the UK.

3. As discussed by Le Brun in a podcast, social pricing is much weaker in Europe than in the USA. Yes, Europe has "hate speech laws" but I believe that social pricing is a far more potent force in stifling dissent. Even with factor #2, if you relieved social pricing in the USA, racial nationalism would flourish. But defeating social pricing would require real leadership (see #1).

4. In America, social pricing is strictly reserved for White racial activism, which is what the System fears.  You want to organize an Irish-American, German-American, Italian-American, etc, club at your school or place of business?  No problem!  Looked on benignly.  Organize a European-American club?  Oy vey, the racism!  Then Day's SJW's would really come out. Don't you think people know this?  Don't you think we need to break that barrier to have success?

*I put "success" in scare quotes because people are grossly overestimating the power of ethnonationalism in Europe where an outright invasion by young NEC and African males is being greeted with the enthusiasm of a sex starved female virgin getting screwed by a lustful alpha male.

What NewGrange Hall Means for Us

via Counter-Currents

Where should we honor the ancestral gods?

Tacitus wrote of the ancient Germans, “they think it proper neither to confine their gods within walls nor to give them any likeness of human appearance: they consecrate groves and glades and call by the names of gods that intangible quality they see with the eye of reverence alone.”[1]

And yet we know that in the eleventh century an impressive temple dedicated to the gods still stood in Sweden, in what is now known as Old Uppsala (Gamla Uppsala). According to Adam of Bremen (born ca. 1050), a gold chain surrounded the temple, hanging from its gables. Near the temple, Adam tells us, was an immense evergreen tree, and a spring at which sacrifices were made. (Indeed, his report is filled with grisly details of what he alleges to be immense numbers of both animals and humans sacrificed at the temple.)

Old Uppsala Church, under which are believed to lie the remains of the heathen temple described by Adam of Bremen
Old Uppsala Church, under which are believed to lie the remains of the heathen temple described by Adam of Bremen

Within the Uppsala temple itself were supposed to have been three statues of Thor, Odin, and Freyr — all depicted, contra Tacitus’s report, in anthropomorphic fashion. Aspects of Adam’s account have been disputed, but it is generally accepted that such a temple did indeed exist. And some archeological evidence has been discovered.[2]

Olaus Magnus Historia om de nordiska folken. Bok 3 - Kapitel 6 - Om ett härligt tempel helgadt åt de nordiska gudarna. - Utgivningsår 1555.
Woodcut of the temple at Old Uppsala

In any case, there have been no temples to the gods since the one at Uppsala was destroyed and a Christian church built on top of it. That is, until now. Just days ago the Asatru Folk Assembly acquired an old grange hall on the West Coast. It sits on roughly two acres of land, is surrounded by trees, and is in excellent condition — as the photos included in this post will attest. The NewGrange Hall-Asatru Hof, as it is being called, is a perfect space for the AFA to meet, and even includes its own kitchen.


This is obviously a major event for Asatru in America (indeed, in the world: a proposed temple in Iceland is supposed to be built in 2016, but the AFA got there first). However, I’d like to persuade my readers that this event is of broader importance as well.


NewGrange Hall will be a sacred space in which Asatru will continue to take shape as a modern religion. By this I simply mean a religion for men and women of the folk living today. It is not a gigantic temple ringed with a gold chain. Instead, it is a modest structure (though certainly an appealing one). And, appropriately, it is very American — in the good, old-fashioned sense: simple, functional, and unpretentious. This is the New World, and Asatru is a new-old religion. It is a reconstruction and revival of the old, ancestral religion. It borrows from the aesthetic of the past, which is fine and good and necessary — but it must bring forth its own, new forms. It must be vibrant, alive, and responsive to the present, while never losing its ties to the past or compromising its fundamental principles.


It will be fascinating to see the new forms of artistic expression that will take shape as members of the AFA begin to adorn this austere, modern American structure. And new forms of ceremony, theology, and community will take shape there as well. All of them will be the result of a dynamic interplay between the old and the new. The work that will take place on the building, and the new-old forms developed within it, will parallel the process that is taking place in each of us as we learn to be true to the gods of our ancestors.

Each of us — and here my audience really is Asatruar in North America — is like NewGrange Hall itself: modern and American. And austere, in the sense that among other things we are united in wanting to strip from ourselves most of the refinements, pretensions, and preoccupations of the “average man.” As Asatru assumes its latest shape within this modern American structure, so it takes shape within our modern American selves. There is a continuity here. But what comes to be in NewGrange Hall and in ourselves will be unique to our time and place, and impossible to predict.

Now, as for those of my readers who have no interest in Asatru, why should they care about NewGrange Hall? As I have argued elsewhere (most recently in my review of Steve McNallen’s Asatru: A Native European Spirituality) a religion is the expression of the spirit of a people. It expresses what a people values, what it hates and fears, what it strives for, and how it sees itself. Thus, religion is a way in which a people confronts itself, or becomes conscious of itself.

Asatru is an expression of the spirit of Northern European people. Or, to put the point much more strongly, Asatru just is the spirit of Northern European people, given expression in the form of myth, imagery, custom, and ceremony. And through Asatru we are brought back into touch with who we are — with our ideals, our history, and the way of being and relating to life and existence that is most natural to us. Thus, the larger significance of NewGrange Hall is that it is a place for our people to come together and come to awareness of who they are. Right now, there is no other place in the world solely devoted to this purpose. That makes NewGrange Hall not just a special place — but one that can only be seen as sacred, if its purpose is fully appreciated.

This is a major event, therefore, for all of us — Asatruar, and those who do not yet realize that they are Asatruar. Ultimately, this is not a matter of choice for us, as we are all the children of Odin. I can no more choose not to “follow Asatru” than I can choose to have different parents. But this is a matter that demands a careful argument, one that I will have to make elsewhere.

The AFA owns NewGrange Hall — but it still has to pay for it. And funds are needed for such things as painting, repairing, and decorating the building. Only five days are left in the AFA’s fundraising campaign — and they have not yet reached the goal of $74,800. Even if you can only spare a modest sum, please donate.

This is an important chapter in the history of our people. You should be a part of it. (And see the Facebook page here.)


1. Tacitus’ Agricola, Germany, and Oration on Orators, trans. Herbert W. Benario (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991  ), 67.