Sep 17, 2015

Fourth Generation Warfare & White Preservation

via Counter-Currents

So far in 2015 the issue of racialized political violence has been front and center. The White Preservation movement specifically has been thrust into the headlines in the aftermath of the Charleston massacre committed by Dylann Roof.

In Europe, the publication of One Of Us, a non-fiction recounting and analysis of the Anders Behring Breivik killings written by Asne Seierstad, has shone a light on similar issues in Norway and brought those events back into the forefront of that country’s dialogue.[1]

In July Counter-Currents published an excellent piece by Patrick Le Brun analyzing a number of recent acts of violence that have been linked (sometimes quite erroneously) to ideas many of us as White Preservationists share.[2] This analysis by Le Brun includes discussions of Roof and Breivik, as well as a litany of other individuals who displayed varying degrees of idiocy, ignorance, and depravity in the perpetration of their crimes. Le Brun does an excellent job of showcasing just how poorly their actions served the respective “causes” these men wished to be fighting for.

In his article Le Brun cites the noted military theorist Colonel John Boyd’s famous “OODA Loop”– the decision-cycle theory of Orientation, Observation, Decision, and Action. Boyd’s formulation has affected our understanding of everything from fighter piloting to military theory to business, and new papers and books are continually being written delving into and building upon this concept.[3] While the OODA Loop is just as important to modernity and the existential crisis of White identify/White survival as it is to anything else, an even more relevant area of Boyd scholarship to apply to these events and questions would be his “Levels of War” – specifically the three levels Boyd added and which help explain modern “4th Generation Warfare.”

Boyd postulated that in addition to the “tactical,” “operational,” and “strategic” levels of war that have been a part of conflict throughout human history, there are also what he dubbed the “moral,” “mental,” and “physical” levels of war. These are the levels of crucial importance to modern 4th Generation Warfare (4GW). 4GW is characterized by conflicts between nation-states (such as the U.S., France, Egypt) and non-state actors (e.g., al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, even Mexican drug gangs), as opposed to past conflicts which typically pitted nation-state against nation-state. In such conflicts the interplay of these three additional levels of war takes on outsized importance. To quote William S. Lind, noted military theorist and Boyd expert: “[State] armed forces focus on the single box defined by tactical and physical, where [they] are vastly superior. But non-state forces focus on the strategic and the moral, where they are often stronger, in part because they represent David confronting Goliath. In war, a higher level trumps a lower, so [nation-states’] repeated victories at the tactical, physical level are negated by [their] enemies’ successes on the strategic and moral levels, and [the nation-states] lose.”[4]

In 4th Generation Warfare the objective of non-state actors is thus not to militarily overpower their nation-state opponents, but rather to delegitimize them, and hasten their downfall. Such downfalls fit within the broader historical context as part of the continual erosion of nation-states that will define the 21st century.

This is extremely relevant to the White Preservationist movement. It ushers in the most fundamental and basic question that we must ask ourselves, which is: are we part of the “us” of nation-states, or the “them” of 4GW, non-state actors. If we view state-based solutions to our aims as feasible, and believe that current North American and Western European governments are capable of preserving our lives, blood, culture, and heritage, then our focus must be on political solutions as part of the democratic process.

I personally do not feel this is the case however. In Europe the demographics have changed so rapidly, and the political process is so inherently paralyzing, that the idea of political solutions materializing in time is unrealistic. The governments of Western Europe, at this point, are neither capable of nor interested in preserving the lives and cultures of their native citizens. Societal breakdown, racial extinction, and cultural Islamization are rapidly approaching in nations such as France and Sweden and their neighbors, and trusting in those nations’ governments to prevent this seems to go past optimism into delusion.

With this being the case, the only valid conclusion is that White Preservationism must become a 4GW, non-state force for it to have any hope of success. Therefore, any writing, organizing, or other action on our part is by definition “revolutionary” (for lack of a better word). It must aim not for victories in the Clausewitzian sense, in which progress is made within the broader political framework, but rather for progress outside and against this political framework. These aims are therefore based around delegitimizing the state and hastening its extinction (at least in its present incarnations).

Such 4GW progress can be gained in a variety of manners, which I will synthesize into four basic tactical areas. These are: 1) the delegitimizing of the government through the implication that it is no longer able to protect its citizens; 2) education/proselytization–in that the actions or statements of the 4GW actors bring awareness to others in society and facilitate their becoming “conscious” and more inclined towards the 4GW aims and beliefs; 3) delegitimizing the host society through showing other citizens that their interests are no longer being represented by the state; 4) gaining the moral high ground through showing the state as evil/Goliathesque and the perpetrators as victims and as heroes for standing up to the Goliaths.

Rather than through the Clausewitzian lenses that Le Brun grades them on, these are the lenses through which the actions of men such as Roof and Breivik must be judged. Their actions are equally ineffective (and equally wrong) through these lenses, but such an analysis can be helpful in examining Boyd’s three layers of war and their significance in our struggle.

My analysis of these two specific incidents is as follows. (Note: I am discussing Roof and Breivik only, rather than including the additional individuals from Le Brun’s article.)

  1. Regarding area number one–delegitimizing the government through showing that they cannot protect their citizens–Roof could conceivably have made a small amount of progress, but this was at most tangential to his goals and to the broader situation. Americans are used to lone gunmen killing large numbers of people, and Roof’s crime would merit at best a D in this regard.
  2. As far as area number two and “education,” I would give him a C. Roof’s tract was published widely, and I definitely met white people in the wake of the shooting who had read it and felt that it made sense, despite its somewhat juvenile and coarse nature.
  3. In a similar manner he also succeeded to a very small degree in area three, in that the fallout of the Confederate Flag witch-hunt in the wake of the massacre did indeed show many white Americans just how unwelcome they and their heritage have become.
  4. In terms of area four–gaining the moral high ground–Dylan Roof scores an F. Killing black parishioners in church was barbarous, cowardly, and stank of evil-mindedness. The pictures he took of himself and posted on his website were puerile and in some cases quite repulsive. Roof gained nothing from society but well-deserved enmity and dismissal, and wholly failed in catalyzing a sympathetic lens among those for whom he sought to fight.
  1. In terms of area number one–delegitimizing the host society’s government by showing that it cannot protect its citizens–I would give Brievik a C. I don’t think Norwegians are shocked that lone attackers can kill large numbers of people, as it has never been a high-security type of society, and terrorism is now a part of life in Europe, but on the other hand, Breivik’s action was of a monumental nature, and surely shone a spotlight on the vulnerabilities inherent in the feel-good Scandinavian social system.
  2. In terms of area number two and the measure of “education” that resulted from his actions, I would give Breivik a D. He had obviously read somewhat widely, but his treatise was too long and disjointed to be read by many people in turn. Some of his ideas were also a little ridiculous, and his leaps of faith or delusions about the “Knights Templar” made it unlikely for anyone to take him seriously.
  3. In terms of area number three–showing fellow native Norwegians that their interests are no longer being represented by the state–I would give Breivik an F, for his attack did nothing to draw attention to the ways in which this is quite obviously the case.
  4. In terms of area four, and forcing the government to act in an un-sympathetic, Goliathesque manner, I would give Breivik a monumental F. The fact that he was captured alive, and is most known since his arrest for complaining about his lack of up-to date video game consoles, has done little to cause people to view him heroically, and indeed if anything has shown the benevolence of a Norwegian government that has treated him in such a humanitarian fashion.
The biggest and most obvious problem with both Breivik and Roof is that their actions were horrific and wrong. Furthermore they were wrong not only when judged through the lens of “modern” society, but would be equally so through any lens that their ostensible brothers or compatriots might apply. Breivik killed both women and underage teenagers. These actions fly in the face of those very qualities that we as White Preservationists are fighting for.

The actions of Breivik and Roof were clearly depraved. With that said, however, I think it is a logical fallacy to extrapolate from that the conclusion that all violence in the name of White-Preservationism is wrong or depraved. In a 4th generation world, violence is manifold and varied. There are as many different types of violence as there are situations, and no matter what kind of violence it is, it will have political implications. To totally disavow political violence in the name of any revolutionary movement is impossible, at least without implicitly rejecting violence itself (e.g., Gandhi, etc.)

The United States still seems, in my mind, to be far away from complete civic breakdown. In Europe however, civil war seems not just possible but likely. As the situation in Europe, and possibly in the United States, comes to a head, violence will become increasingly omnipresent. Each of us, both as individuals and as members of this nascent movement, will need to make conscious decisions regarding how to respond. One choice, the aforementioned one, is to only seek state-based solutions, and to write and organize politically to achieve our aims through conventional means. A second choice would be to oppose our governments, but to embrace pacifism and similarly eschew all violence. Any other choice would leave some form of violent action on the table.

If violence does occur then it must be judged upon two axes. Axis one involves questions of right and wrong and what is morally correct. For instance, the majority of us will agree that killing women and children is wrong. The second axis is what is effective. While some violent actions can be wise strategically when looked at through Col. Boyd’s three modern levels of war, other forms of violence will irreparably harm us, as Patrick Le Brun eloquently illustrated in his article.

For the sake of argument, I think it valuable to posit hypothetical examples of violence that are as close as possible to ones which might be considered both morally acceptable (or at least neutral), as well as effective when viewed through the lens of the moral, mental, and physical levels of war.  Most importantly, these hypothetical examples would not by my definition be “depraved,” à la Roof and Breivik.
  • Now that thousands of 11 to 16-year-old white girls have been targeted, gang-raped, and in many cases tortured by Muslims in Britain, if a group of English men set up “grooming patrols” in the UK and violently confronted any Middle-Eastern man caught talking to young white underage girls, I would not consider that depravity. The official aim of such groups would be to “Protect underage British girls from mass gang-rape, because our government refuses to do so,” or something similar, which points directly to the failure and refusal of the UK government to stop these crimes.
  • If young white men traveled to Kurdistan to help fight against ISIS (as some already have), I would not consider that depravity. Such an action might make little difference strategically, but would situate these fighters on the same side as the rest of white Westerners who abhor ISIS, and provide a powerful template to millions of young white men in Europe and North America.
  • If Dylann Roof had actually gone into the ghetto, waited to be violently accosted by a group of black men, and then shot them in self-defense, I would not have considered that depravity. Roof would have appeared on the “David” side of the equation, instead of squarely situating himself as a cowardly “Goliath,” shooting innocent black Church attendees.
  • If Anders Behring Breivik had only killed adult male members of ethno-suicidal Norwegian political parties, who have busily sown the seeds of their country’s destruction, I would not have considered that depravity.  Such an action still poses significant questions of right and wrong, but it also would have injected notions of traditional gender roles and traditional Nordic honor codes into the narrative, and been more palatable to the Norwegian public and less-inspiring of revulsion.
  • If the father or the brother of a Scandinavian woman raped by an immigrant or immigrants committed an act of retribution and murdered the rapist(s), I would not consider that depravity. In addition to the justifiable nature of such an action, this would also delegitimize the nation’s rulers to a large degree, and would point a spotlight on the Scandinavian governments’ wholesale unwillingness to stop such widespread attacks.
  • Were we, as White Preservationists in America, to sponsor Swedish (and other European) citizens to come to American “self-defense camps” or “tactical training camps” to undergo training for the impending civil war, this would in my mind be effective in the moral and mental levels of war. The publicity surrounding such actions would be a key component, for it would place those training for the civil war in the same shared intellectual space as those more mainstream native Europeans who also understand that civil war is coming. Any hysterical reactions on the part of European governments that could be elicited would only further demonstrate their wholesale refusal to acknowledge reality, and any actions on the part of those governments to punish those camp attendees would engender sympathy for them and antipathy towards their governments.
  • If a group of Englishmen were to symbolically put David Cameron on “trial” as an accomplice to the mass rapes in Rotherham, gain wide circulation of both this “trial” as well as the details of the Rotherham reports, and then “sentence” him to death, I would not consider this depravity. Cameron, along with the rest of the 2015 UK Election Candidates, completely ignored Rotherham and the issue of Muslim perpetrated and ethnically motivated mass child-rape. Cameron has famously stated that “It is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.”5 Symbolically charging Cameron as an accomplice to these atrocities would not only be “right” by any sense of the word, but would also be effective from a 4GW standpoint. Indeed, a large measure of al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden’s success and celebrity as a 4GW force came from his similar pronouncements against the Saudi Royal Family. Such pronouncements earned him the rapturous regard of millions of Muslims the world over, helped turn countless young Muslims to the Islamist cause, and helped delegitimize the Saudi Royal Family and secular Arab rulers throughout the Middle-East.
Questions of violence such as these will be increasingly relevant as the West descends into greater 4th Generation fracturing and warfare. Just as our ancestors struggled and fought for long generations, defending their tribes and their families from outside aggression, so too are we entering another phase where we must focus on survival. This will take place in various ways, but for good or ill it will involve manifestations of violence. It is our duty to ensure that our actions are consistent with the legacy we have inherited from those great men we are descended from, and the honor codes that define our noble heritage. Just as our emerging struggle for survival should be our top priority collectively and as individuals, so too should an honorable course of action be the top priority within this struggle. Anything less, on both fronts, would dishonor that lineage. While the existential struggle into which we as a people are entering is of a monumental nature, it is conversely a privilege, and one which we should strive to meet with both intentionality and honor.

#damonsplaining: Anti-Whites Attack Hollyweird's Favorite Leftard


Oh, this is schadenfreude-licious. Outspoken celebrity Democratic activist/donor Matt Damon opened his mouth and let the truth about the left’s superficial commitment to “diversity” slip out.

Now, liberal ideologues are furiously whacking the relentless GOP-bashing actor for his “white privilege.” There’s even a Twitter hashtag —”#damonsplaining“—that erupted this week to mock his unforgivable political transgression.

Here’s what happened. Damon (along with his progressive pal Ben Affleck) co-produces the television series “Project Greenlight,” which gives wannabe filmmakers the opportunity to compete for a shot at directing their first feature film. The current season’s prize script features a man who weds a black prostitute after being abandoned at the altar. On this week’s episode of the show, aired on HBO, Damon dressed down black female producer Effie Brown for pushing the judges to give special consideration to a directing duo consisting of a white woman and a Vietnamese-American man.

An impatient Damon retorted: “When we’re talking about diversity, you do it in the casting of the film, not in the casting of the show.”

An offended Brown responded as if the wind had been knocked out of her: “Hooh! Wow, OK.”

Damon went on to remind Brown that the rules of the competition called for judging candidates “based entirely on merit.” And that politically incorrect principle set his loony liberal friends’ hair on fire.

Huffington Post huffed that Damon was “tone-deaf.” CBS News reported: “Internet outraged after Matt Damon interrupts black woman filmmaker to explain diversity.” The holier-than-thou white leftists at sneered at Damon for donning his “Smart White Man” cape. One enraged YouTuber headlined the exchange: “Matt Damon goes ‘Massa’ on producer Effie Brown.”

Poor dear. Damon is guilty of a classic Kinsleyan gaffe—accidentally telling a political truth—and I’m enjoying every second of these chickens coming home to roost on his smug little lap. For decades, the “progressive” champions of government affirmative-action policies have used minorities as highly visible Christmas ornaments to assuage liberal white guilt. It’s always been for show.

Whether it’s the progressives of pallor at MSNBC or the Associated Press board of directors or the top brass at The New York Times, I’ve pointed out many times over the years that the loudest preachers of manufactured skin-deep diversity work for media and entertainment organizations that fail to practice their own social engineering sermons behind the camera and in their backrooms.

Damon and his ilk routinely attack tea party conservatives as racists and bigots. They savage the GOP for not being “inclusive” enough. They lambaste Fox News for being too “white” and “blonde.”

Yet, the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism found that “in the top-grossing movies since 2007, there were more than twice as many speaking roles for men as for women.” Measured by the gold standard of liberal proportional representation metrics, only 11 percent of those 100 top-grossing films had “balanced casts” (e.g., women representing 45 to 55 percent of the characters). And of nearly 800 directors involved in those movies, only 28 were women, 45 were black/African-American and 18 were Asian or Asian-American.

Hypocritical Hollywood touts its fealty to token racial, ethnic and gender “diversity,” but like every major institution dominated by the left, it demands the most extreme political conformity. Conservatives in the performing arts are ostracized, blacklisted and closeted. Conservative minorities are humiliated as sellouts, puppets, Uncle Toms and Aunt Tomasinas.

Meanwhile, the militantly intolerant entertainment industry pays off race hustlers Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to mollify the diversity racketeers—without ever having to be held accountable for Hollywood’s institutional failure to meet the “diversity” standards they demand of others.

If nothing else, the p.c backlash at Damon has at least provided a fleeting moment of left-on-left warfare. Live by bean-counting, die by bean-counting, pal, and please pass the popcorn.

Holy Social Justice Warrior, Batman: The Dark Knight Now Sides with Black Lives Matter

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

It's strange to think of the moments from our youth that stick with us. For me, one of my earliest memories is when the parents inadvertently took my sibling and I to see the 1989 Batman. Being the tender age of five (and my siblings all younger), perhaps my parents thought the Tim Burton directed movie would pay homage  to the Adam West TV show of the 1960s.

But swept up in Batman-mania as all the country was that summer, my parents took us to see the movie.

I still remember sitting in theater as my parents shifted uncomfortably in their seats as the incredible dark, sinister plot played out before our eyes and I was completely, utterly entranced.

It was a religious experience (only confirmed a few years later when at a church function, someone popped in a VHS copy Batman).

And it's all in the opening scene when The Dark Knight hunts down two white criminals on a rooftop in Gotham City, disposing of them in quick order (but not before alerting the conscious thug to tell all his friends about him).

The idea of combating evil and never tolerating those who would make a city unsafe for decent people trying to put down roots is one of the more important lessons a young child can learn (in a more sane era, westerns told these stories).

But one thing I could never understand was why Batman was set in some strange world where white people still lived in a major city? Then, watching Batman: The Animated Series, the same thing was happening: it was as if Gotham City was stuck in some 1939 version of New York City when the city was 90%+ white.

It dawned on me at young age (middle school): what type of story could you tell when Bruce Wayne was fighting crime, dysfunction and decadence in a city where white flight from black crime had left merely the infrastructure of the past intact, but the new black majority was drowning in an ungodly amount of crime the likes of which the Joker, the Riddler, Two-Face, Mr. Freeze, and Scarecrow would find impossible to replicate?

What type of story could you tell when Batman was only fighting black crime, and the media quickly dubbed this masked vigilante a racist for daring to deprive black individuals/black gangs their right to prey upon the weak?

Tim Burton's two Batman films (Batman, Batman Returns) and the Christopher Nolan Dark Knight trilogy were all set in a Gotham City that appeared to be more than 80 percent white, with basically all street level crime committed by whites. In both interpretations, the murderer of Wayne's parents (the act motivating him on a journey to fight crime) is white.

But this view just doesn't make any sense, when one considers the crime rates (and the racial demographic behind the violent crime) in our "greatest" cities; which is precisely why the director of Batman: The Animated Series wanted to set the world of Gotham City in 1939.

Having Batman fight black thugs and black gangs just isn't as much fun as a having him combat a colorful - yet all white - rogues gallery of villains.

It's okay to cheer Batman on as he fights white men psychologically damaged or emotionally scared (the Joker, Two-Face), but to show him hunting black thugs would be cringe inducing and immediately trigger the modern reader/viewer to interpret the supposed hero as the racist villain.

Frank Miller, whose iconic interpretation of Batman in The Dark Knight Returns depicts him as an outright fascist character (who tells a criminal he has just crippled thinking about his "rights" is what keeps him up at night), reinvented our notion of how we view Wayne's vigilante actions.

But in today's world, such a view has changed, as now Wayne is fighting police racism and gentrification. [Batman confronts police racism in latest comic book: New issue wades into the conversations about race, poverty and gentrification roiling the US, responding to a new political consciousness among fans, The Guardian, 9-15-15]:
People die every day in Gotham City, the fictional hive of corruption where Batman patrols the rooftops. But not until Wednesday did the Dark Knight find himself investigating a black teenager in a hoodie shot dead by a frightened white police officer, let alone wondering about his own indirect role in the boy’s death.
The latest issue of DC Comics’ flagship Batman series throws itself headfirst into the agonizing conversations roiling America more than a year after Ferguson officer Darren Wilson killed 18-year old Michael Brown. The globally iconic superhero confronts racialized police brutality and its intersection with urban poverty and gentrification – problems Batman comes to realize he exacerbates in his secret identity as billionaire industrialist Bruce Wayne.
Comics critics say they are hard pressed to remember Batman ever addressing institutional racism and its socio-economic dimensions as bluntly as this in the character’s 75-year history. While police corruption has long been a feature of Gotham – even showing up on the eponymous Fox TV adaptation about to enter its second season – it it is rarely shown to disproportionately impact black people.

Yet Batman #44, a flashback story, begins with the blunt image of a dead black boy, his body left “for the crows”, as the narration reads, resonant of Michael Brown in Ferguson. He wears a hooded sweatshirt, as did Trayvon Martin before George Zimmerman killed the 17-year old. What begins as A Simple Case – the title of the issue – becomes a meditation on the meaning of a rich, white vigilante who attempts to solve intractable urban problems by beating up bad guys.

“This issue is meant to be a thesis about what our Batman is,” lead writer Scott Snyder told the Guardian.

“We’ve tried to be pretty relentlessly on-point about him being a symbol of inspiration in the face of tremendous fear, as opposed to a symbol of punishment, or a symbol of revenge, taking the city away from criminals. Here is where he begins to learn [the limits of] the methods that he thought would work: finding a criminal, making an example of the criminal, throwing the criminal in jail … Instead, what he has to learn is that the problems that he’s facing in today’s city are much more humbling, are much more complicated.”
Most controversially, Snyder’s story shows 15-year-old Peter Duggio shot in the stomach by Gotham police veteran Ned Howler. Duggio is shown frightened, emerging from a fight in his father’s bodega with a local gang, and before he can respond to Howler’s demand to lie down, the officer mortally wounds him.
But the story also points a finger at Batman’s unstated assumptions – those that animate the character, and those that animate the metaphor of the superhero crimefighter. The conflict over the bodega boiled over, Peter’s cousin tells Batman, “once Bruce Wayne announced he was gonna develop the neighborhood”. Suddenly, Batman must confront the hubris of his mission to save Gotham, as his focus on individual and not structural answers set into motion the events that led to Howler killing Peter.

Snyder said that during the winter he came up with the idea of addressing the intersection of police brutality and gentrification during the series’s current story arc, in which Gotham police commissioner Jim Gordon takes over as Batman. News reports from Ferguson and Staten Island, New York, where police choked Eric Garner to death, helped inspire the story: “If we were going to do an issue that dealt with potent problems that people face in cities that are reflected fictitiously in Gotham, then we want to really put our money where our mouth was and explore something that’s extremely resonant right now, and, I think, tricky, murky waters.”

For help, Snyder turned to Brian Azzarello, whose acclaimed 100 Bullets saga established him as one of comics’ best noir writers. Azzarello said he sought to sharpen the comic’s points about gentrification.
“This thing is such a ripple, the way lives are affected by gentrification. On one hand, yes, you’re cleaning up this area, you’re making it more livable for people. But you’re not saying anything about the people that live there,” said the Chicago-based Azzarello, who remembered how the 2011 redevelopment of the city’s Cabrini Green housing projects left residents “scattered all over the city, just uprooting them, and they had no choice in the matter because they had no money.
“And if you have no money, you have no voice. And we definitely raised that [in the comic],” Azzarello said.
However Fowler, the police officer who kills an unarmed teenager, doesn’t find himself on the receiving end of Batman’s famous rage. Snyder said depicting Batman punching out a fearful officer risked undermining the purpose of a comic book about social problems, while having the ultimate hero of the broader arc be the police commissioner opened up narrative space to address racialised police violence.
“Of course you want Batman to beat this officer up, and be like, ‘How could you?’ But the point of the issue is that wouldn’t solve the problem. Batman throwing the officer off a roof, or throwing the officer in jail, it wouldn’t get to the heart of the matter at all. And that’s the thing I think is ultimately infuriating,” Snyder said.
Azzarello said he preferred the story to “raise the questions and then leave it to the reader to form their own answers and opinions”.
Accordingly, Batman finds himself on one of Gotham’s rooftops, staring out at a city that no longer makes sense to him, as fictionalized versions of newspaper articles on police brutality, institutionalised racism, poverty and gentrification swirl disorientingly around him.
Social Justice Warrior (SJW) Batman...

A far cry from the Frank Miller interpretation of Batman, who was quoted as noting the reality of what a masked vigilante/superhero actually represents (as noted by Superman in the Dark Knight Returns): a criminal who takes the law into their hands:
“You were the one they used against us, Bruce. The one who played it rough. When the noise started from the parents' groups and the sub-committee called us for questioning... you were the one who laughed... that scary laugh of yours. "Sure, we're criminals", you said. "We've always been criminals". "We have to be criminals."
Back in 1989, this was the version of Batman I saw on screen, in a version of the character still haunting me to this day.

Police brutality, institutionalized racism, poverty and gentrification? What a boring rogue's gallery to fight and silly motivation for Wayne to dress up as a bat and go out into the night to fight crime.

But such is the culture in 2015: we must glorify blacks and blame any and every shortcoming individual blacks face on the evils of white racism and the lingering residue of bigotry; blacks collective inability to live up to the standards established by whites can only be considered the fault of the latter group for failing to lower the achievement bar to one the former can reach.

And the actions of a rich, white vigilante trying to solve the problems of urban America are only palatable to our SJW-dominated culture when Batman wages war on the oppressors Howard Zinn has identified as the true enemy... white people.

Merkel’s Betrayal: From the Ethno-National Principle to an Afro-Islamic Germany, Part 1

via The Occidental Observer

European nationalists everywhere have been aghast at the ongoing flood of Africans and Muslims currently invading our Old Continent. Our Western politicians, far from seeking to contain this movement, have sought only to “organize” this development. At the center of this has been German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who for many years has acquired a reputation as the tough-minded de facto leader of the European Union. Strangely, Merkel seems to reserve her rigor for fellow Germans and Europeans, never for the welfare-shopping foreign settlers. In this article, I would like to go over the recent decisions and statements of the German government, and contrast these with historical postwar attitudes towards non-European immigration. In short, I will present a decline in ethnic consciousness in German society, even at the highest levels of government, to the sorry condition of today.

During this crisis, politicians have been eager to signal their moral credentials in response to massively-publicized symbols, such as the tearful Palestinian girl who asked Merkel why she would be deported and the already-ubiquitous child Aylan Kurdi who drowned off the coast of Turkey. Less advertised are the victims of the foreign invasion, such as poor Germans evicted to make way for “asylum-seekers,” the non-consented imposition of a refugee camp in Dresden, or the rape of a seven-year-old little German girl by a “North-African-type” foreigner. The latter vicious crime was all the more symbolic in that the girl had been playing in a park dedicated “to the victims of fascism.” Nor was this an isolated incident. There have been other incidents of migrants raping European women. Allowing these migrants to settle in Germany is a moral catastrophe for the German people.

The policies of Brussels and Berlin are confused and chaotic — a mixture of temporizing, moral signaling, and ad hoc management of a very practical human problem which is, whatever the moralistic exhortations, overwhelming specific cities and localities. One day the Chancellor suggests that Germany will accept 800,000 asylum-seekers (equal to a full percent of the German population, but far younger and more fertile). Another day her Vice Chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, tells German television that the country can indefinitely receive 500,000 “refugees” every year: “I believe we could surely deal with something in the order of half a million for several years. I have no doubt about that, maybe more.” A few days after that, Germany’s social service agencies find themselves so overwhelmed that the country even had to suspend the highly-treasured European Schengen Area of borderless free travel to reinstitute border checks in the face of the human flood.

There is no indication that German and EU leaders are even trying to contain this flood. European naval operations in the Mediterranean, in “saving” seafaring migrants and setting them on European soil, only encourage more. The EU and Western leaders have sought to shame Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán for building a border fence to enforce his nation’s immigration laws. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker is pushing a binding scheme to distribute 160,000 migrants across the EU under the absurd and false slogan: “Everyone in Europe has been a refugee.”

Merkel has said that responding to the migration crisis could be “the next great European project,” by which she seems to mean that skeptical Central-Eastern Europeans will be browbeaten and bribed into accepting their “fair share” of welfare-users, culture destroyers, and potential rapists and terrorists. Our European nations could come together — rich and poor, east and west, north and south — to build up the defenses of our shared continent, to finance refugee camps abroad, to pressure the wealthy Israelis and the Gulf Arabs to take in refugees, and finally restore peace in the Middle East and cease to collaborate in American/Zionist aggression in the region. This would be a worthy cause, indeed a noble crusade, but there is no indication that Merkel means anything of the kind.

It is not as though the Europeans, a brilliant constellation of great nations despite their current decadence, lack the know-how or ingenuity to stop population movements. The Munich-based industrial giant Airbus Defense and Space has built a $3.4 billion “900km state-of-the-art fence” for . . . Saudi Arabia. This barrier has proven extremely successful, with the wealthy Saudis accepting virtually none of their “Arab brothers” as refugees. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has offered to return the favor by offering to fund 200 mosques in Germany for the incoming migrants. It’s enough to drive one mad!

The details on the outcome of this crisis and Merkel’s muddled and suicidal management remain to be seen. But the Chancellor herself has spelled out the big picture: “What we are experiencing now is something that will occupy and change our country in coming years.[1] Germany will be “changed.” Indeed, it will no longer be German and European, but increasingly African and Muslim. Indeed, Merkel has previously said that “Islam belongs to Germany.” No doubt Charles Martel is turning over in his grave. In effect, Merkel has accelerated the native Germans’ reduction to minority status in their own ancient homeland. And, as the Social-Democratic economist Thilo Sarrazin has painstakingly documented,[2] this will mean a Germany with lower IQ, lower social cohesion, lower educational and economic performance, and higher welfare use.

In short, Merkel — the East German pastor’s daughter — is consciously organizing the accelerated destruction of the historical German nation. Alain Soral’s French nationalist website Égalité et Réconciliation condemned Germany’s statements as “high treason” and “programmed destruction.” It did not and does not have to be that way. Indeed, German leaders long took a more realistic and common sense approach to ethnicity and immigration.

After 1945: Ethnically conscious anti-Nazis

Turkish negotiators of the Treaty of Lausanne (1923).

The ethno-national principle was perhaps most explicitly affirmed in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne which ratified the exchange of ethnic Greek and Turkish populations at the end of the First World War, ensuring the two nations would be as homogeneous as possible. Western leaders often promoted, where possible, the political and geographical separation of different ethnic groups into different states: One people, one country, one state, so to speak. This is a simple and time-tested recipe for promoting peace and reducing ethnic conflict.

It is striking to observe that the ethno-national principle was frequently adhered to even after the destruction of the Third Reich in 1945. Everywhere, the victors proclaimed the evils of National Socialism in selfishly and ruthlessly defending the ethnic interests of Germans. Yet the Allies were often similarly ruthless in their methods and aims. They ethnically-cleansed East Prussia, Silesia, and the Sudetenland of some 9 million Germans (perhaps 2 million dead), to make way for homogeneous Czech, Polish, and Russian territories. This was brutal and unjust for the victims, but it was also perfectly successful: There have been no serious ethnic conflicts in those territories since, there has been peace, whereas multiethnic Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union have fallen apart and much of their former territories are still afflicted by ethnic warfare.

The Jews in Israel — whose numbers had been swelled by Adolf Hitler’s agreement with the Zionists to send German Jews there and by the survivors of World War II — also adhered to the ethno-national principle, adopting a largely-racial definition of Israeli citizenship and Jewish identity, not so different from those of the Nuremberg Laws.[3] Tel Aviv passed Jews-only immigration and nationality laws specifically-designed to maintain a racially Jewish majority over the indigenous Arab population.

Finally, the postwar Federal Republic of Germany itself — what was then West Germany — also largely adhered to an ethnic conception of citizenship. Like Tel Aviv, the Bonn authorities promoted the immigration of co-ethnics, namely of the lost German communities in Eastern Europe, who had arrived there as settlers during the Drang nach Osten in the Middle Ages and survived the travails of the World Wars. These returning German communities abroad, no longer called Volksdeutch (folk-Germans) due to politically-incorrect association with the Nazis, but Aussiedler (repatriates), have proven easy to assimilate.

Indeed, Germany rejected birthright citizenship for the children of foreigners born in the country due to a strict adherence to jus sanguinis. As a result, the children of Turkish Gastarbeiter — “guest workers” short-sightedly brought in to provide low-wage labor to German businesses — were not entitled to citizenship.

Chancellor Schmidt: Continued opponent of non-European immigration

Helmut Schmidt
Helmut Schmidt

German leaders, up to the highest levels of the state, remained deeply-wary of non-European immigration up to the 1990s. Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, the Social-Democratic leader of the country between 1974 and 1982, repeatedly warned his compatriots of this problem. In his last year in office, he promised: “Not one more Turk will come over the border.”  In 2000, the elder statesman warned against Turkey joining the European Union and Islamic immigration, citing cultural differences. In 2004, Schmidt went further, saying that Turkish immigration to Germany had been a mistake. He argued that “multiculturalism is difficult to make fit in a democratic society” and that the resulting ethnic conflicts could only be managed by an authoritarian regime, citing Singapore as an example.

Most recently, in 2013, Schmidt (a sprightly 94 year-old despite his inevitable cigarette) explicitly differentiated between assimilable European immigration (which has strongly increased with the enlargement of the EU in Eastern Europe and the economic crisis in southern Europe) and non-assimilable Afro-Islamic immigration:
As regards Italy or Greece, there’s no problem. One day the Italians and the Greeks will go home or they’ll integrate into society in the course of time. That’s what we’ve seen for decades. The problem isn’t due to Italian, Greek or Spanish immigration. The problem is due to immigration from foreign cultures, for example cultures marked by Islam. [. . .] There are no major differences between Italian cizilisation and French or German civilization. Turkish culture is very different, Algerian culture is very distinct too, Egyptian culture, the cultures of the eastern part of the Mediterranean are much more distant. [. . .] Free circulation within Europe isn’t dangerous. What’s dangerous is the mixing with foreign cultures, with the traditions of foreign cultures and civilizations.

Chancellor Kohl’s remigration proposal to halve the Turkish population in Germany

Helmut Kohl with Margaret Thatcher

Schmidt was not the only one fearing the consequences of non-European immigration. His Christian-Democratic successor, Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who governed the Federal Republic between 1982 and 1998, was also greatly concerned. Kohl is a particularly significant figure, having been the architect of German Reunification and, with French President François Mitterrand, of the European Union.

In October 1982, the newly-elected Kohl informed British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of a top secret remigration plan to halve the Turkish population in Germany and reverse immigration flows, the kind of proposal which today could only be suggested in the far-right fringe of nationalist politics. According to declassified British documents:
Chancellor Kohl said [. . .] over the next four years, it would be necessary to reduce the number of Turks in Germany by 50 percent — but he could not say this publicly yet [. . .]. It was impossible for Germany to assimilate the Turks in their present numbers. [. . .] Germany had no problems with the Portuguese, the Italians, even the Southeast Asians, because these communities integrated well. But the Turks came from a very distinctive culture and did not integrate well. [. . .] Germany had integrated some 11 million Germans from East European countries. But they were European and therefore presented no problem.
High unemployment in Germany at the time and Turks’ propensity to black market work and forced marriages were just some of the problems cited. The Turkish population in Germany at the time numbered 1.5 million, which would have meant shipping back some 750,000, the rest would have received special schooling to force assimilation.

In any event, Kohl settled for a more moderate scheme which enticed Gastarbeiter to return home through a 10,500-Mark lump sum (over $25,000) and a reimbursement of retirement contributions. About 100,000 Turks did indeed leave, but this was not enough to stem the tide of new arrivals of workers, “asylum” claimants, and their families.

Today, Kohl’s proposal is considered shocking in Germany, reflecting widespread cultural changes in German elite and popular culture. As Der Spiegel explains:
“Back then, the societal consensus in Germany was that Turks were guest workers and would have to go home,” Freiburg-based historian and author Ulrich Herbert told SPIEGEL ONLINE. And this wasn’t confined to right-leaning political parties like Kohl’s [Christian-Democrats], but rather “penetrated deep into the SPD,” he added, referring to the center-left Social Democratic Party.
It would be more accurate to say that German society, including the center-left, was still-imbued with traditional, adaptive, and indeed common sense views on ethnicity and culture. They had not yet been “penetrated” by blank-slatist and multiculturalist propaganda.

Kohl, unlike Schmidt, later changed his views, as the article notes:
In 1993 he went against many in his own party and came out in support of giving automatic German citizenship to third-generation “foreigners” — children born in Germany whose grandparents had immigrated. Immigrants contributed “enormously to the well-being of Germans” and helped secure their retirement, said the chancellor later in his career. In 2000, Kohl travelled to Istanbul to attend the wedding of his son Peter to a Turkish banker.
In passing, there may be no better way to undermine a ruling elite’s solidarity with its people than miscegenation, to increase genetic distance and to decrease relatedness. As the old saying has it: “Blood runs thicker than water.”

Germany’s traditional jus sanguinis would only be fully abolished in 1999 with a new nationality law passed under the opportunistic Social-Democratic Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and Green Vice Chancellor Joschka Fischer. The amiable, sleazy Schröder — who in retirement has pimped his services to Russia’s Gazprom and the Rothschild family’s investment bank among others — can be thought of us as a kind of German Bill Clinton. Fischer, a ’68er, has proven similarly unprincipled — going from an “anti-imperialist” student to a collaborator in the NATO war of aggression against Serbia in 1999 — and has supported the migrant invasion.


[1] My emphasis. This statement could be compared to President Bill Clinton’s advocating in the 1990s the physical reduction of White Americans to minority status.
[2] Thilo Sarrazin, Deutschland shafft sich ab: Wie wir unser Land aufs Spiel setzen (Munich: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 2010). Still unavailable in English. Translated into French as L’Allemagne disparaît: Quand un pays se laisse mourir (Paris: Le Toucan, 2013).
[3] Hitler and the National Socialists can be faulted for insufficiently following the ethno-national principle, beginning with the unilateral annexation of Czech Bohemia. In addition to breaking his word and humiliating the peace camp in Great Britain and France, this was a pure and simple violation of the principle that each people should be governed by their own. (“Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer.”)

Camp of the Saints: Why @RodDreher Is Wrong about Race and Culture

via Occam's Razor

Rod Dreher recently decided to review the 1973 novel Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail.  In my estimation, this is one of the greatest novels of the 20th century, a novel that everyone should read (here’s a free PDF of the English translation), so I was pleased that Dreher was bringing attention to the novel.  Nonetheless, I am disappointed at the politically correct tone and factually incorrect nature of the review.

For instance, Dreher writes:
Raspail does not separate skin color from culture and civilization…  …Everything else in the novel ties civilization precisely to skin color.
Dreher throughout the review seems disturbed that Raspail considers race as an important factor.  Dreher seems to think that culture somehow hovers in some hyperdimensional sphere completely removed from the biological reality of race.  I know that Dreher occasionally reads HBD blogs, so I’m a little surprised that he would advocate a position so contrary to recent findings in science.
Here are some problems with Dreher’s account….

Dreher is too hung up on skin color.  Yes, skin color, or let’s just say general “looks,” are important in evolution.  For instance, in the famous Russian fox experiment, we know that when the foxes were selected for behavior it also affected their looks.  As the foxes became more behaviorally domesticated, their looks become more domesticated as well.  In short, as far as we can tell at this point, “looks” are probably in many cases tied to behavioral traits.

Nonetheless, race is more than just skin color.  It encompasses tens of thousands of years of evolution. As this chart shows, humans genetically cluster into races:


And you can measure the genetic distances between ethnic groups and races:
Cavalli-Sforza’s team compiled extraordinary tables depicting the “genetic distances” separating 2,000 different racial groups from each other. For example, assume the genetic distance between the English and the Danes is equal to 1.0. Then, Cavalli-Sforza has found, the separation between the English and the Italians would be about 2.5 times as large as the English-Danish difference. On this scale, the Iranians would be 9 times more distant genetically from the English than the Danish, and the Japanese 59 times greater. Finally, the gap between the English and the Bantus (the main group of sub-Saharan blacks) is 109 times as large as the distance between the English and the Danish.
On average, Europeans are around 100x more closely related to each other than to sub-Saharan blacks. Something more than mere “skin color” obviously is going on here.

What Dreher fails to understand is the gene-culture evolution thesis.  Ancestry / race and culture are interlinked – and probably deeply so.

For instance, Peter Frost offers a succinct summary here of recent findings.

For a more detailed and theoretical account, Cochran and Haprending’s 10,000 Year Explosion is necessary reading (free PDF).  This book traces the gene-culture evolutionary history of humans over the past 10,000 years.  It is definitely one of the most influential books I’ve ever read.  If Dreher has not read it (I suspect he hasn’t), I hope he does so.  Perhaps he could even write about it at TAC.

Raspail in the 1970s was not aware of recent findings in human genetics and evolution, but as a novelist he was way ahead of his time.

Eternal Candidates of the Kucknesset

via Alternative Right

The latest Twitter shitstorm centres round Ann Coulter's reaction to the latest GOP Presidential Debate. When asked "What will AMERICA look like after you are president?" several of the candidates simply ignored the subject of the question, as well as the actual country they were seeking election in, to talk instead about Israel, prompting Ms. Coulter to tweet "How many f---ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?"

As intended, this immediately lit up the Twittersphere, with those who don't know Ann, seeing it as blatant anti-Semitic race baiting rather than a comment on the Philosemitic incontinence of the candidates and their lack of focus. Coulter, of course, is herself a bit of a cuck for Israel, as she soon reminded people:

But at least she knows TPO on this issue, unlike the sorry GOP hacks lined up for debate, whose donor-trained reflexes and perceptions of who runs the media make then twitch and gush with love for Israel, even when it isn't required and is inappropriate. Those Republicans taste Jews in their sandwiches – and love the taste! 
This all reveals one very salient fact about Republican Party politicians: whatever other office they may be running for, the majority of them are simultaneously seeking election to a kind of virtual Knesset of American cucks for Israel. In short, they are are eternal candidates of what can best be described as the Kucknesset.

Jack London, White Racialist

via The End of Zion

“The proper function of man is to live, not exist. I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my time.”

Although at the time, he probably didn’t realize it, Jack London would come to fulfill his own words during a life full of adventure, controversy and undeniable tragedy. Jack London was an adventurer stuck in a world of convention. He was the successor to a long line of Aryan warriors, intellects, and conquerors. In his 1914 novel, The Mutiny of the Elsinore, he wrote “I know, now, that my forebears were Vikings. I was seed of them in their own day. With them I have raided English coasts, dared the Pillars of Hercules, forayed the Mediterranean, and sat in the high place of government over the soft sunwarm peoples.” Such Racial awareness as this is extraordinary no matter in what time it manifests itself. What made Jack London special, as you will see, was his ability to express in words what had taken centuries to ingrain in the Aryan soul.

Jack was born out of wedlock to Flora Wellman and Professor William H. Chaney on January 22, 1876 in San Francisco, California. Flora, the estranged, somewhat rambunctious daughter of a wealthy Eastern family, would never marry Chaney. When Jack was eight months old, Flora married a working-class-man by the name of John London. He would be the only father Jack ever knew. His early years were filled with poverty. As a thirteen year-old, he worked along children of six and seven in a pickle cannery for 10 cents an hour, often sixteen hours a day. These early experiences would fuel his life long hatred for capitalism. He eventually quit his job and become an oyster pirate, sailing his own ship. Always the restless wander, at age 21 he set sail for the Klondike with the hope of striking it rich. His experience in the Klondike, though rather miserable, would greatly influence his later literary work.

When Jack returned to his home town of Oakland, he was determined to start his literary career. He would religiously write one thousand words per day, rain or shine. For several years he spent much of his money on postage stamps for the hundreds of manuscripts he sent to magazines around the country. Jack London could have wallpapered his house several times over with the rejection papers he received, but he didn’t give up. His work was too brutally honest, with an emphasis on brutal, for most of the pulp magazines he was trying to write for. Finally in 1897, The Overland Monthly published one of his stories, for which he was paid five dollars. Jack soon realized that his fortunes would lay in the publishing of his books.

In 1903, Jack’s first commercially successful book, The Call of the Wild, was published. The story is a deceptively simple one about a kidnapped dog, named Buck, who is taken to the Yukon and sold as a sled-dog. In truth, it’s the story of race, the superiority of one race over the other, and the survival of the fittest. Although Jack is writing about a dog, his theories also relate to humans. Buck knew that, “he must master or be mastered; while to show mercy was weakness. Mercy did not exist in the primordial life. It was misunderstood for fear, and such misunderstandings made for death. Kill or be killed, eat or be eaten, was the law; and this mandate, down out of the depths of Time, he obeyed.” This excerpt sums up much of Jack London’s philosophy. Genetics – the will to survive – was the all-determining factor in his view of life. It decided what race, species, or individual would survive to pass on their genes. Jack would revisit this topic over and over again in his work. As he expressed, the year earlier, in his sociological work The People of the Abyss, Jack had an incredible amount of compassion for the poor working-class. This compassion was not of the sniveling and charitable type, but of the steel fisted revolutionary sort. In 1905, while addressing a group of wealthy capitalists in New York, Jack said: “Look at us! We are strong! Consider our hands! They are strong hands, and even now they are reaching forth for all you have, and they will take it, take it by the power of their strong hands; take it from your feeble grasp.” Jack believed that revolution was the only possible answer to the problem of capitalist domination. Jack wrote eight months before his death, “My final word is that liberty, freedom, and independence, are royal things that cannot be presented to, nor thrust upon, races or classes. If races and classes cannot rise up and by their own strength of brain and brawn wrest from the world liberty, freedom, and independence, they never…can come to these royal possessions.”


“… Ours is a lordly history, and though we may be doomed to pass, in our time we shall have trod on the faces of all peoples, disciplined them to obedience, taught them government, and dwelt in the palaces …”

In Jack’s next novel, The Sea-Wolf, he would again consider the influence of genetics on the human condition. The novel tells the story of Humphrey Van Weyden who transforms himself from weakling to warrior during his stay on the Sea-Wolf. In the middle of a dangerous seal hunting expedition, Humphrey thinks to himself: “The youth of the race seemed burgeoning in me, over-civilized man that I was, and I lived for myself the old hunting days and forest nights of my remote and forgotten ancestry.” A similar instance occurs in the short story In the Forests of the North. It follows, “He, alone, was full-blooded Saxon, and his blood was pounding fiercely through his veins to the traditions of his race.” Jack was incredibly proud of his Racial heritage, and he was not afraid to express it through his novels and short stories.

With the Russio-Japanese War raging in the Far East, the Hearst newspapers offered Jack the assignment of covering the conflict for them. On January 7, 1904, he set sail for Yokohama, on board the S.S. Siberia. Upon arriving in Japan, Jack quickly disobeyed the orders of the Japanese government that no reporters be present at the Korean Front. He sneaked into Korea by chartering a rickety sampan to take him across the Yellow Sea. Once there he was immediately struck by the cruel treatment inflicted upon the Russian prisoners by the Japanese. In one of his dispatches he wrote, “These men were my kind.” He also stated that he would have preferably joined the Russians “in their captivity, rather than remain outside in freedom amongst aliens.” When Jack returned to America, many, including his fellow socialists, questioned his vehement attacks on the Japanese and the “yellow peril.” He answered them simply: “I am first of all a white man and only then a socialist.”

In The Iron Heel, released in 1908, Jack records the events surrounding the rise of the working-class and their bloody attempt to destroy capitalism. The story is told by the wife of revolutionary, Ernest Everhard. Ernest is described as “…a superman, a blond beast such as Nietzsche described.” The book was universally mocked by the critics and many socialists. The Independent concluded that “semi-barbarians, to whom this sort of stuff appeals, may possibly tear down our civilization.” We certainly hope so. The most prophetic part of the book comes at the end. After a failed uprising in Chicago, many revolutionaries are murdered by the Iron Heel. In our own time we have seen mini coups at Whidbey Island, Ruby Ridge, Waco and Oklahoma City that have failed to ignite the multitudes in a national revolution. From the ashes of this failed revolution rise terrorists groups more radical than Ernest Everhard could have imagined. Jack describes some of these groups: “The Valkyries were women. They were the most terrible of all. No woman was eligible for membership who had not lost near relatives at the hands of the Oligarchy. They were guilty of torturing their prisoners to death. A companion organization to the Valkyries was the Berserkers. These men placed no value whatever upon their own lives, and it was they who totally destroyed the great mercenary city of Bellona along with its population of over a hundred thousand souls.” I am sure one can name at least ten contemporary groups with similar goals. After the death of Robert Mathews and other comrades, the American government has made many in the revolutionary movement even more radical. The more something is suppressed, the more dangerous and powerful it becomes.

Another highly Racial novel was The Valley of the Moon. The two main characters are Billy Roberts and his wife Saxon. They are a working-class couple living in Oakland during the early 20th century. As life becomes increasingly difficult for the urban working class, and a revolutionary friend of theirs is murdered, Billy and Saxon decide to abandon city life and go in search of an unknown paradise in the countryside they call the Valley of the Moon. When Billy and Saxon first meet, she explains to him the origin of her unusual name: “My mother gave it to me … the Saxons were a race of people – she told me all about them when I was a little girl. They were wild, like Indians, only they were white. And they had blue eyes, and yellow hair, and they were awful fighters.” She continued: “They were the first English, and you know the Americans came from the English. We’re Saxons, you an’ me, an’ Mary, an’ Bert…” Racial pride is something Jack London’s characters are always willing to exhibit. Also Racial loyalty, something we rarely see in the White man today, is a sub-plot in The Valley of the Moon.

Billy and Saxon’s friend Bert becomes increasingly revolutionary in his thinking as the living conditions of the working-class in Oakland sink deeper into poverty. He said: “What chance have we got? We lose. There’s nothin’ left for us in this country we’ve made and our fathers an’ mothers before us. We’re all shot to pieces. We can see our finish-we, the old stock, the children of the White people that broke away from England…” After Billy asks Bert what we should do about it, Bert responds, “Fight. That’s all. The country’s in the hands of a gang of robbers.” It is more true today than it was then.

One of Jack’s last novels, The Mutiny of the Elsinore, was written in 1914. The main character is a young playwright, much like Jack London, who is a passenger on the Elsinore in route from Baltimore to Seattle. The novel is an allegory for the history of the White Man. I cannot add much to what is Jack’s greatest Racial achievement therefore I will quote chapter 22 at length. It follows, “Every one of us who sits aft in the high place is blond Aryan. For’ard, leavened with a ten per cent. Of degenerate blondes, the remaining ninety per cent. Of the slaves that toil for us are brunettes.” The struggle between the Aryan masters and the non-Aryan crew on board the ship represents the same universal struggle in miniature.

As far as I know, Jack London, in The Mutiny of the Elsinore, is the first articulate spokesman for racial separation in modern times. After the mutiny has occurred, the dark-skinned mutineers, which included Jews, are trapped by the blondes in the aft. The blondes keep themselves protected in the ship’s forward with their cache of guns, ammo and food. The plan is to starve the darkies out until they surrender. After the mutiny, the young playwright notices a change in the mood of the Elsinore’s passengers. He wrote, “All our voyage from Baltimore south to the Horn and around the Horn has been marked by violence and death. And now that it has culminated in open mutiny there is no more violence, much less death. We keep to ourselves aft, and the mutineers keep to themselves for’ard. There is no more harshness, no more snarling and bellowing of commands, and in this fine weather a general festival obtains.” Jack was trying to explain how it is that Racial separation is the peaceful and human solution to the world’s problems. When the races are separated, as on the Elsinore, there is much less conflict.

In one of his greatest insights, Jack summarizes the achievements, failures, and possible future of the Aryan race, “And I look at the four of us at table – Captain West, his daughter, Mr. Pike and myself – all fair-skinned, blue-eyed, and perishing, yet mastering and commanding, like our fathers before us, to the end of our type on the earth. Ah, well, ours is a lordly history, and though we may be doomed to pass, in our time we shall have trod on the faces of all peoples, disciplined them to obedience, taught them government, and dwelt in the palaces we have compelled them by the weight of our own right arms to build for us.” Jack saw the future of our race as hopeful and full of possibilities. After the death of the Captain West and Mr. Pike, it is the Aryan playwright that, by superior intellect and by violence, takes back the Elsinore. In this instance, our race won.

As his fame grew, Jack traveled the world; always returning to the calming influence of the sea. His second wife, Charmian, now accompanied him. He also continued with his interest in politics, mainly socialism. His relationship with the Socialist Party had always been a rocky one. Jack’s extreme revolutionary ideas, which were often violent in nature, and his racism brought him to constant blows with many other socialists. During his reporting of the Mexican Revolution in 1914, he referred to the revolutionaries as “stupid anarchists” and “half-breeds” mentally incapable of government rule. As the American Socialists did a slow burn back in the States, Jack continued to write scathing Racial articles about the Mexicans. He wrote, “the mixed breed always is – neither fish, flesh, nor fowl. They are neither White men nor Indians. Like the Eurasians, they possess all the vices of their commingled bloods and none of the virtues.” As the alien hordes of mongrels have swept across Aryan lands, we have seen this statement become all too true. Jack believed that the natural resources of Mexico should be used for the betterment of the White Race. This infuriated the Socialists in America. Jack had carved an impasse between himself and the Socialist Party that would never be bridged. In 1916, the year of his death, he resigned from the Socialist Labor Party. At this point in his short life, almost sensing his premature death, he became a hard-core revolutionary. He felt that the Socialist Party had lost its “fire and fight.”

Many Jack London biographers and scholars have made the mistake of believing that as Jack grew older his racial views lessened in intensity. To support their theory they point to the fact that Jack and Charmian felt sympathy for the plight of the native Polynesians, then under White capitalist control. During their attempted around the world trek in 1907-1910, they witnessed the suffering of the natives. As Jack stated later in The Mutiny of the Elsinore, he and Charmian felt that Racial separation was to the betterment of the White, as well as, the dark races. Jack’s last major novel, The Little Lady of the Big House, was published the same year of his death. He wrote “You are successes. Your muscles are blond-beast muscles, your vital organs are blond-beast organs. And from all this emanates your blond-beast philosophy. That’s why you are brass tacks and preach realism, and practice realism, shouldering and shoving and walking over lesser and unluckier creatures who don’t dare talk back.”

Jack London’s writings stand as a testimony to a dying breed of White man, determined to exert his Will to Power over those who would let him. London was a proud and loyal member of our Folk, and whereas he died young, his wisdom shall transcend time and endure as glints in the eyes of the young and old alike, warmed by his poetic expressions of Aryandom.


Jack London – A White Man Of Whom We Are Proud

Some Thoughts on the Corbyn Phenomenon

via Western Spring

Most people from all political persuasions are both surprised and bemused by the election of Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the Labour Party, not knowing quite what to think.

There are those members of the public who are of a more radical left-wing persuasion who will no doubt be rather pleased by Corbyn’s success and the prospect of being able to vote for a decidedly left-wing prime ministerial candidate at the next general election, although the brighter ones will no doubt be asking themselves how such a prospect came to drop in their laps so suddenly, and so unexpectedly?

Furthermore, those of us who have for some time watched the ways in which electoral politics is so often cynically manipulated by political power brokers and the mass media will be asking much the same question but from a distinctly different perspective.

Jeremy Corbyn has been a Labour Member of Parliament (MP) at Westminster for more than thirty years, but he has not been in any sense a prominent politician, playing any kind of leading role, and in fact, prior to his recent nomination as a candidate in the Labour Party leadership contest, he was virtually never mentioned in the news and was regarded by most Labour Party members and supporters as a marginalised character of little consequence. How is it then that this apparent nonentity has suddenly been catapulted from obscurity into one of the highest profile positions in British politics?

For some years now the political establishment have been increasingly aware of a declining public interest in politics, as has been indicated by falling political party memberships and falling turn-outs at election time. There has been a growing realisation that increasingly, members of the public have come to regard all of the establishment political parties and politicians as so similar that it is difficult to differentiate between them and therefore difficult to maintain any real enthusiasm for any of them. There has been a growing perception that all politicians are self-seeking and career driven — more interested in occupying lucrative political positions and exercising political power for the benefit of themselves and generous party donors, than in serving the interests of our nation.

When Tony Blair resigned the leadership of the Labour Party in 2007, there was already a perception that some of the ‘chickens’ from his foreign policy exploits; from his drive to privatise public services; and from his ‘demographic vandalism’, were already starting to ‘come home to roost’.

During the late 1990s and the decade that followed, Blair and to a lesser extent Gordon Brown had initiated a major departure from traditional left-wing Labour policies, moving the party to what media pundits like to believe is the ‘centre-ground’ of British politics – effectively out-Torying the Tories – and establishing ‘New Labour’, which later came to be seen as ‘Blue Labour’.

Once the public began to see through Blair’s naked ‘snake-oil salesmanship’ however, Blair had effectively ‘queered the pitch’ for those who were to follow and so when he vacated the Labour leadership in favour of Gordon Brown, it was something of a poisoned chalice and Brown predictably lost the 2010 general election.

When Ed Miliband then won the subsequent Labour leadership contest, pushing aside his brother David who had been the favourite to win, it was as the result of a growing reaction within the Labour Party against the Blairite and Brownite New Labour project — a reaction largely driven by the largest trade unions, who were beginning to reassert themselves and replace Lord Levy’s predominantly Jewish business friends as the Labour Party’s most influential donors. It was also a reaction in response to the jaded public opinion that I have already described.

Milliput 2However, while his policies were a little more in keeping with ‘traditional’ left-wing Labour thinking, Ed Miliband was such a poor prime-ministerial candidate that he blew his golden chance to make his mark in British politics in the general election earlier this year. Not only had Miliband moved slightly off the ‘centre-ground’ that the media and our political elite like the winning party to occupy — one of liberal-conservatism, come social-democracy — but his ‘alien’ appearance and geeky demeanour did little to endear him to the British public either.

Although he had been the eventual beneficiary of the previous Labour Party leadership election process, in which there was an ‘electoral college’, in which 33⅓rd of the vote was reserved for each of: the party members; the elected MPs and MEPs; and the trade unions, Miliband was cognisant of the resentment felt by many Labour MPs, that the unions had too much influence and in 2014, in keeping with the Collins Report into this issue, he introduced reforms including a new process for electing the party leader giving one vote per member of the party.

What no-one within the parliamentary Labour Party ostensibly appears to have realised however, is that in moving to diminish the future influence of the trades unions, the recommendations of the Collins Report would also remove the 33⅓rd of the vote reserved for MPs and MEPs, placing the destiny of the party entirely in the hands of its individual members and activists, many of whom are enthusiastic trades unionists and Labour’s most traditionally minded left-wingers.

A move designed to emasculate union influence over the Labour Party and to reduce the possibility of radical elements saddling the parliamentary party with a too extreme, ‘lame-duck’, leader appears to have produced the opposite effect.

It is claimed that Jeremy Corbyn was only nominated as a leadership candidate by his parliamentary colleagues in order to create the impression that party members had a wide range of choice of candidates, but as a consequence of the three largest trade unions throwing their support behind the most decidedly ‘old Labour’ candidate, Corbyn was transformed from rank outsider, to hot favourite and as we know, much to the apparent horror of the establishment and the parliamentary Labour Party, he has now been elected Labour Party leader.

When I first heard news that Corbyn was the front runner in the leadership election, I was rather suspicious. I am always suspicious when previously obscure individuals are suddenly catapulted from nowhere into the leadership of one of the main establishment political parties. Tony Blair was catapulted from obscurity — albeit with different window dressing — and so was David Cameron, and both of these men have been shown to have been men ‘cut from the same cloth’ — smooth-talking, ‘snake oil salesmen’ who can fake sincerity until the cows come home. Clearly, Blair and Cameron are establishment insiders and I was suspicious that Corbyn might be also. However, after much searching, and in light of the evident hostility towards Corbyn emanating from certain quarters, I am inclined to conclude that Corbyn probably is an establishment outsider, over whom our political elite fear they may have little or no influence.

This does not mean however that I regard Corbyn as any less dangerous regarding the welfare and future survival of the British people, far from it, but he is a new element that serendipity has thrown into the mix.

There has been a mixed response from the media to Jeremy Corbyn and his team, with the traditional Tory supporting newspapers like the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, together with the UKIP supporting Express and most of the television channels featuring fairly caustic accounts of everything he does, criticising his appearance, his dress sense, and digging up stories of things he said an did many years ago.

Interestingly, one of the most vitriolic sources of attack upon Jeremy Corbyn has come from Stephen Pollard, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, in an article on the Daily Mail website, entitled, “Enemies of Britain… but friends of Corbyn: How new Labour leader appears to hate this country”. In this article, Pollard states, “It has become a cliche to say that Jeremy Corbyn is not fit to be the leader of the Labour Party …

“But it’s worse than that. He is barely fit to be an MP. Corbyn doesn’t just hate America, Nato and the West. He appears to hate Britain itself …

“Some things are beyond parody. And one of them is now leading the Labour Party.”

Few of the general criticisms levelled at Corbyn by Pollard, however, could not also be levelled at most other prominent Labour Party politicians. In earlier articles also published in the Mail, Pollard derided all of the potential candidates for the Labour Party leadership, declaring “Burnham’s a joke, Yvette’s a whimper: Labour’s hopefuls are a hopeless bunch”, and that “… after 115 years, the [Labour] Party’s over!”

Corbyn 3

The one specific criticism, which in the eyes of organised Jewry clearly separated Jeremy Corbyn from the other Labour Party leadership contestants, and which separates him from past Labour Party leaders, is Corbyn’s past association with certain advocates for Arab and Palestinian causes who have been described as anti-Semitic or as Holocaust deniers, and it is clear that this one issue overrides all other considerations in the eyes of many Jews. The Jewish Chronicle presented Jeremy Corbyn with seven questions recently to which they demanded a reply, which Jeremy Corbyn endeavored to answer, however despite a number of Jewish activists within the Labour Party stating their support for Corbyn, Stephen Pollard and his staff do not appear to have been placated.
The Jewish Chronicle have even gone to the extent of commissioning an opinion poll of British Jews in order to establish their views regarding Jeremy Corbyn and interestingly, while the poll results showed that 67% of Jews are concerned by the prospect of Corbyn as Labour leader, the poll also revealed that when Jews hear politicians describe themselves as ‘anti-Zionist’, 44% of Jews stated that they ‘always’ assume the politician is actually ‘anti-Jewish’; a further 27% stated that they ‘often’ make that assumption; and a further 19% said ‘sometimes’.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Jeremy Corbyn’s views and the impact they have upon the writers for and viewers of the Jewish Chronicle, it is clear that Corbyn can be differentiated from political leaders like Blair and Cameron, who have in the past been catapulted from obscurity, in that he does not appear to have the financial support and sponsorship of a cabal of prominent Jews, and appears to have attained the position of leader of the Labour Party without overt support from such a source.
While it will be interesting to see how this situation plays out, it would be wrong for us to assume as I have already stated, that Jeremy Corbyn is likely to be significantly better for Britain and the British people should he ever be elected prime minister. Some of Corbyn’s aims such as the re-nationalising of our utilities industries and our railways and the use of printed banknotes rather than the issue of loan stocks to finance public works may elicit approval from most nationalists, and are a step in the right direction, but a Corbyn government would in addition to a continuation of open door immigration and the promotion of multiracialism and multiculturalism; give us more political correctness; run down our armed forces to even more laughably inadequate levels than they have reached already; create a bonanza for benefits claimants; abolish private medicine; keep us in the European Union (it is a Marxist entity after-all); and would facilitate the break-up of the United Kingdom, granting Scottish independence and the cessation of Ulster to a united Ireland.

So, how should we White nationalists view the Corbyn phenomenon?

Ostensibly, it would appear that Corbyn’s attainment of the Labour leadership is to some extent the result of the result of serendipity of misadventure, depending upon which way you view it. I am always reluctant however to accept a version of events that does not involve scheming on the part of somebody. I am reminded of the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt when he said, “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”

I cannot believe that in drawing up the new rules for the election of Labour Party leaders, no-one realised that this would play into the hands of the unions rather than limit their influence, and if we look to see who drafted and first recommended the changes, it was Ray Collins, Baron Collins of Highbury, a man who was until his appointment as General Secretary of the Labour Party in 2008, the Central Office Manager of the Transport & General Workers Union, a position he had held for twenty-four years. Furthermore, Collins’ recommendations were accepted and sold to the parliamentary Labour Party in part by Ed Miliband, a man who owed his own ascent to the Labour Party leadership to the support he had received from the trade unions.

Most interesting however is that Tony Blair gave his strong personal backing to Ed Miliband’s internal Labour reforms when they were introduced in February 2014, and while Tony Blair may be many things, I don’t think he is a fool. Therefore, despite Blair’s high profile denunciation of Corbyn during the leadership election, one can only assume that he was aware of the consequences of the changes introduced with his blessing.

BlairIn fact, Tony Blair must have known of the yearning among grass roots Labour activists and trade unionists for a authentic, hard-left, ‘Old Labour’ leader for the party, and he must have been aware of the great loathing with which he is regarded by those same rank and file Labour members. Surely he will have known that his denunciation of Corbyn would have the opposite effect of that which one would expect if taken at face value. Far from dissuading Labour Party activists from voting for Corbyn, Blair’s plea would have them queuing up to support Corbyn, which is precisely what happened.

With the election of Corbyn as Labour leader there is considerable disquiet among the MPs and MEPs of the parliamentary Labour Party and there have been rumours that this unhappy situation could end with a split in the Labour Party and with a sizeable number of their MPs leaving the party and either standing as independents, or joining the Liberal Democrats in a repeat of the ‘Gang of Four’ defection of the 1980s.

The effect this would have on British politics is quite interesting in that we would then have establishment political parties as follows, from political right to left: UKIP, led by authentic conservative leader, Nigel Farage; The Conservative Party, a liberal-conservative party, led by David Cameron; the newly renamed Social-Democrats (LibDems plus Labour defectors) , led by Nick Clegg or some Blairite placeman; and the Labour Party, led by an authentic socialist leader, Jeremy Corbyn with the support of the SNP led by Nichola Sturgeon.

The effect of this would be to reduce to the minimum the possibility of any one party having an overall majority in the future. It would almost guarantee perpetual coalition politics in future, along the lines of most other European Union member states, a situation that prevents strong national government and which would prevent any likelihood of a maverick member state ever leaving the union.

A further effect would be to create the illusion of choice in elections between decidedly ‘right-wing’ characters such as Farage, and decidely left-wing characters such as Corbyn and Sturgeon, with more moderate ‘left/right of centre’ parties led by the likes of Cameron and Clegg. There would be the illusion of choice with which to keep the ‘punters’ happy, while at the same time, no one party would ever be able to take decisive action and all parties would consequently be forced to defer to the EU over major policy issues.