Oct 20, 2015

White Alpha Hypothesis: Against the "White Altruism" Hypothesis

via TradYouth

Pathological altruism is an authentic and obvious phenomenon. Women’s suffrage and the steadily rising social and political power of Western women in every social and political pursuit has been the primary–but not necessarily exclusive–driver of this phenomenon. The healthy, natural, and good feminine impulse to nurture and protect which is vital to the health and vitality of families, neighborhoods, churches, and communities is only pathological when it’s out of context and scope, …as it typically is nowadays.

Just as Internet pornography misdirects and warps the male mind away from the behavioral patterns intended by God and nature, cloying media campaigns calling for us to take pity on and offer charity for this or that victim almost always misdirect and warp the feminine (and feminized) mind toward serving some calculated political agenda. Whether it’s Ahmed’s dad crafting a scary looking clock to push his Islamic immigrant agenda, the media zooming in on drowned migrant babies to push their European immivasion agenda, or Leftists framing violent criminals as hapless victims of police brutality who dindu nuffin to serve their #BlackLivesMatter agenda, it’s probably bullshit.

If it involves both pity and a hashtag, you’re being cuckolded. Some political faction, somewhere, is scheming to redirect your altruistic instincts from your family, neighbors, parishioners, and friends to drive their carefully calculated agenda. Jack Donovan’s breakthrough essay, I Don’t Care, explains it all very well. In summary, giving a damn is a finite and precious resource to be jealously guarded and thoughtfully distributed in a generally localized and directly accountable manner.

I object to the general consensus emerging in the New Right that pathological altruism is the primary driver of our dispossession. Pathological altruism is a real problem, but it’s not the problem with White countries. If sincere altruism were a major problem, then it would exist more commonly in sustained forms. Very few people anonymously and consistently donate to those Sally Struthers commercial projects to send $1 per day to an African villager. Third world aid isn’t a popular talking point on the campaign trail, and it’s understood both in theory and in practice that the vast majority of “foreign aid” is encrypted bribery of poverty-stricken nations to serve our geopolitical agenda.

The only altruism which is prominent is the vacuous signaling type. Whites aren’t herding to Big Brother programs to mentor and support Black youth in response to the public outcry over police brutality. They’re tweeting #BlackLivesMatter and doing absolutely nothing else. Even the ones who are more aggressively signaling are doing so in a manner carefully calibrated to increase their social status. At the cost of adopting and caring for a Black orphan, one could make a world of difference for the Black orphan and his entire village back home. But that’s not a common or popular thing to do, because it’s really all about status, not altruism.

To actually adopt a Black child? Sure, it does nothing to improve global poverty, but it sends a glass-shattering signal to everybody in a twenty mile radius that you’re a White Savior.

Altruism is an active state of genuine care, not a posture, position, or tweet. Not only does George Bush not actually care about Black people, none of the rest of us do, either, Kanye. There’s only so much “care” to go around, guy. And don’t pretend you care all that much about White people. Let’s all stop posturing for a moment. You wouldn’t know it from listening to modern people talking or listening to the mainstream media, but the overwhelming majority of Americans, White and Black alike, don’t actually care about much of anybody or anything outside of their own private world of family and friends. And given Modern alienation, even that pool’s pretty much drained.

The root of our dispossession doesn’t lie in our Pathological Altruism. It lies in White Saviorism, which is the neo-colonial compliment to paleo-colonial White Supremacism. Whites, being the most aggressive and masculinized of the races which have had the opportunity to dominate other races, have the strongest compulsion to do so. Sure, the Chinese want a stake in African resources and are muscling their way into the neo-colonial game. But they’re capable of doing so without this awkward and grandiose internal struggle over how to relate with the locals.

The Chinese just do their business, bribe who they need to bribe, keep out of local affairs, and carry on with the business of exploitation. It’s a much more dignified, honorable, and straightforward arrangement that the Global South actually prefers over our incessant mind games and manipulations. Just ask Mugabe.

In the past, this impulse of ours manifested in the straightforward manner of colonial domination, imperialism, slavery, and dominant/submissive caste societies. As economic and geopolitical realities rendered that means of minion-mongering unsustainable, we Whites were driven to encrypt our will to power and domination in the language of altruism and dependence.

What we originally had with the Global South was a simple dominant and submissive relationship. With White Saviorism (White Supremacism 2.0), we have evolved towards a complex but still dominant and submissive relationship. Women who’ve been in abusive relationships are fully aware of how an aggressive and controlling man can and will frame his domination in the language of altruism, caring, and sacrifice. Our neo-colonial relationship with the Global South is no different. We need them to need us, and the last thing the White Savior wants is for minorities to gain authentic autonomy, independence, and sovereignty over their own affairs.

This dynamic is remarkably fragile and readily vulnerable to memetic warfare tactics. This is fortunate, since if the root problem really were sincere altruism, we would have an intractable uphill battle against innate human nature on our hands. Our basic instincts are fine, it’s the context and signaling which could use an update.

White Saviorism

Spreading the mantra that “White Saviorism is White Supremacism 2.0” exposes the status signaling White liberal for White he is, a status-seeking opportunist relying upon minorities as pawns in the internecine battle between White liberals for status. Minorities themselves have actually been complaining about this for decades (centuries, actually), and minorities refusing to be condescended to will most likely be the ones who ultimately manage to deconstruct the White Savior social status game.

White Advocates can help this process along, but we can be especially effective by amplifying the voices of minorities who are pushing back against the White busybodies. Why is “escaping the ghetto” framed as tantamount to religious salvation in Hollywood, rather than raising up the ghetto? White Saviorism. Why is complete integration framed as the final solution to racial problems in the West rather than local and cultural autonomy? White Saviorism. Getting to integrate with Whites is seen by Whites as the ultimate gift one could offer to minorities.

Mock the White Saviors. It’s already making a difference.


Accusing White Saviors of cuckolding themselves is the natural counterpoint to the White Savior mentality, and it has gone so viral in American politics within the past few months because it strikes at the visceral root of the problem. It counter-balances the impulse to signal as socially dominant against the impulse to signal against the ultimate status-destroying perception that one is a victim of humiliation and dispossession.

Already, the “#cuckservative” phenomenon has split the mainstream conservative movement into mutually hostile factions. One side, featuring Donald Trump, Ann Coulter, and the more agile paleocons, is more confidently and directly speaking to White American interests than we’ve seen since the George Wallace campaign. The other, most prominently National Review, is doubling down on the altruistic signaling. NRO had literally dozens of articles shrieking about the villainy of White interests and its latest cover is from a Black “conservative” stooge who believes that Black votes should be weighted 5/3 as slavery reparationsm, blackspaining down to his readers about how they can win Black votes by appealing to Blacks’ explicit racial interests.

Organized Jewish Community

Organized Jewry didn’t actually create this White Savior dynamic, and we would most likely have organically arrived at White Saviorism as a response to the decline of the colonial White Supremacist world order on our own. Having said that, they’re the most dogged defenders of this status quo. White gentiles are earnestly striving for social status when they’re embracing the White Savior mentality, whereas the neocon Jewish conservative vanguard is knowingly leveraging it as a means of cuckolding our own group interests in the service of theirs.

One needn’t be the least bit conspiratorial or hateful about it. Merely calmly naming the Jew and his Jewish interests when he engages in the public debate goes a very long way toward limiting the effectiveness of their subversion. The Jewish infiltrators of White American political opinion rely on the implied “us,” and gently pricking that balloon sharply limits how much political subversion of White interests they’re capable of.

Confirming that Marco Rubio stands with Israel because of his billionaire Jewish donors, and that those same donors demand closed borders, racial dominance, and DNA testing for citizenship in their own country breaks the false framing they trot out for their loyalty to Israel. Jewish money and power still dwarfs gentile money and power in American politics. And, with the exception perhaps of the stray maverick billionaire, we can’t expect our voices in American politics to be as loud as Jewish voices just yet. But we can begin the awakening process, deconstruct the White Savior memeplex, and force Organized Jewry to be more circumspect in their subversion with some simple and attractive ideas.


We Whites want non-Whites to want us; we need non-Whites to need us. This dysfunctional relationship can’t go on forever. The final stage in the decline and fall of the colonial world order is for Whites in colonialism’s proverbial backyard to reject it in its entirety, including in its encrypted White Saviorism form. Early colonialism may have created Rhodesia, South Africa, Australia, and White America. But late colonialism is what’s killing us. The colonial capitalist oligarchs rammed the shiv into the Rhodesian peoples, and the same fate awaits us if we don’t learn to join the Chinese, the Eurasians, and the Global South in casting off the yoke of colonialism and striving toward a more equitable and just world order oriented toward tribe and tradition for all rather than finance and exploitation for the few.

César Tort’s “El Orador”

via The West's Darkest Hour

Before I was born my mother used to practice El Orador (YouTube audio here): a piece for piano composed by my father, the late César Tort.

Throughout her pregnancy I happened to be a couple of inches from the piano’s keys, in embryonic state! My mother once told me that while practicing that piece I moved vigorously in her womb. I have this music amalgamated to my soul…

El Orador (The Orator) is a fantasia for piano that my father composed in 1956 and was performed for the first time by María Teresa Rodríguez, and then by my mother (photo above) in private gatherings after I was born.

Father Vértiz, a Catholic priest with eloquent oratory power had inspired the music of my father. According to my parents, the priest’s sermons were like a parable: they initiated in adages and after crescendos culminated in a violent rhetoric that captivated the faithful.

They Posture, You Pay: The Treachery of Britain’s (and all of the West's) Liberal Elite

via The Occidental Observer

Emily Thornberry is back. This rich Marxist lawyer is perfect for the modern Labour Party because she despises the White working-class. Unfortunately, she made this obvious in public last year, so Ed Miliband, then Labour leader, was forced to sack her from his shadow cabinet. Now Jeremy Corbyn, the radical new Labour leader, has welcomed her back as shadow minister for employment. He doesn’t care about her contempt for Labour’s traditional supporters, because he shares it. As one of their own peers pointed out, Labour views “working-class voters as an obstacle to progress” —  racist, sexist and homophobic threats to Britain’s vibrant rainbow future.

That’s why progressives in Britain want to swamp working-class Whites with gentle, chivalrous, LGBTQ-friendly Muslims and Blacks from the Third World. The results are already apparent in Rotherham, Oxford and many other places, but progressives aren’t satisfied. Emily Thornberry and her fellow feminists want lots more Muslims and lots more child-rape. But Emily isn’t just a typical Labourite: she’s also a typical lawyer. That’s why she surely welcomed this courageous intervention in the “refugee crisis” by key members of the legal community:

A typical refugee: Little Orphan Ahmed
A typical refugee: Little Orphan Ahmed

The government’s offer to take in 20,000 Syrian refugees over five years is far “too low, too slow and too narrow”, according to a statement published by 300 senior lawyers, former law lords and retired judges. Prominent supporters of the legal initiative, denouncing the UK’s asylum policy as “deeply inadequate” on Monday, include the former president of the supreme court, Lord Phillips, three ex-law lords — Steyn, Walker and Woolf — as well as a former president of the European court of human rights, Sir Nicolas Bratza, and a one-time director of public prosecutions, Lord MacDonald.

The combined assault by senior figures from the legal profession is also backed by more than a hundred QCs, the government’s former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Alex Carlile, and five judges who recently sat in the court of appeal — Sir Henry Brooke, Sir Richard Buxton, Sir Anthony Hooper, Sir Alan Moses and Sir Stephen Sedley. The statement calls for “safe and legal routes to the UK” to be established, for Britain to accept a “fair and proportionate share of refugees”, and suspension of the Dublin system, which compels asylum-seekers to claim asylum in the first country where they set foot in the EU. Although no serving judges have signed, the initiative continues the process of the judiciary becoming more outspoken in political affairs. …
Sedley, a court of appeal justice, said: “It is within the UK’s power to curtail the lethal boat traffic by enabling refugees from Syria and Iraq to travel here lawfully in order to apply for asylum. Since refuge from persecution and war is a universal human right, this means recognising that our government’s present offer to take no more than 20,000 Syrian refugees over five years is wholly inadequate. As a stable and prosperous country, we can do better than this.” (Conservatives’ asylum policy on Syria criticised as ‘too low, too slow, too narrow’, The Guardian, 12th October 2015)
Those sophisticated lawyers obviously have little grasp of the long and bloody history of ethnic conflict, but they would be deeply insulted if you suggest that they are unfamiliar with literary giants like William Blake and Charles Dickens. Perhaps they aren’t as familiar as they should be. Blake summed up their “statement” perfectly when he said this: “He who would do good to another must do it in minute particulars. General good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite and flatterer.”

Their statement is also a perfect example of the “telescopic philanthropy” satirized by Dickens in his novel Bleak House (1853). Mrs Jellyby works tirelessly for the far-off Blacks of Borrioboola-Gha while neglecting her own children. But Dickens satirized something else in the novel: the legal profession, which he portrays as corrupt, self-serving and actively harmful to its own clients. This is how the narrator describes the lawyer Mr Kenge: “He appeared to enjoy beyond everything the sound of his own voice.”

Does that sound like the trained lawyers Tony Blair and Barack Obama? It certainly does. Posturing is central to progressive politics, and bishops are as corrupted by it as lawyers:
An extraordinary row between the Church of England and the prime minister has burst into the open as 84 bishops accuse David Cameron of ignoring their offers to help to provide housing, foster care and other support for up to 50,000 refugees.
In a remarkable move that shows their frustration at Downing Street’s foot-dragging, the bishops have released to the Observer [the Guardian on Sunday] a private letter they sent to the prime minister in early September. In it they called on him to increase the number of refugees that the UK is prepared to take over the next five years from 20,000 to 50,000, and to consider involving the church in a national effort to “mobilise the nation as in times past”.
Describing the mass movement of refugees as a “moral crisis”, the bishops offered to rally “churches, congregations and individuals” across the country behind efforts to make rental properties and spare housing available to those who had fled their homelands. (Bishops in stinging rebuke to David Cameron over refugee crisis, The Guardian, 17th October 2015)
Any policy that admits aliens as refugees ought to require that the elites promoting this madness but of course, that won’t happen. Indeed, Bishop David Walker is quite clear that refugees are not welcome is his mansion. But rest assured, his heart is in the right place.

David Walker, Bishop of Manchester
He postures — you pay: Bishop David Walker
One of the 84 Church of England bishops who publicly pressed David Cameron to allow more Syrian refugees into Britain last night said he would not take any into his own six-bedroom mansion. The Bishop of Manchester, the Right Rev David Walker, urged ordinary people to welcome asylum seekers from the war-torn country and said it would be ‘a sad reflection’ on society if they did not.
He claimed, however, that it would be wrong for a refugee family to move into his own recently refurbished house because of the language barrier and their ‘alien culture’. …
Bishop Walker said his Manchester diocese had made available an empty vicarage for a refugee family, but he told Sky News that he would not offer his own home. … Bishop Walker’s two children have grown up and, while the house is used as diocesan offices, its only full-time inhabitants are the 58-year-old bishop and his wife Susan. He said: ‘I have got a smallish house by bishops’ standards, a relatively modern house. It is adequate for our purposes, it allows us to entertain guests when we need to do so, but it has not got hundreds of spare bedrooms kicking around.
‘I think in any case what most refugees need, as well as the vicarage we have supplied elsewhere in Manchester, is self-contained accommodation, a place where they can be with their families, not try to share the breakfast table with a couple whose language they don’t understand and whose culture is alien to them.’ (Church of England bishop who preaches about allowing Syrian refugees into Britain… but won’t take any into his six-bedroom house, The Daily Mail, 18th October 2015)
The smug bishops and “senior lawyers” who want more Syrians in Britain are parading their virtue before the world, relishing the sound of their own voices, and experiencing the heady rush of gratified narcissism. But will their comfortable lives and fat bank-accounts be threatened by the incomers? No, not in the slightest. They posture while others pay. And give the Guardian its due: although it fully supports the posturing, it does allow the little folk their say occasionally:
During the early 2000s, refugees arrived and settled in Britain from many wartorn places, most of our making. At the time, I was working with a group of women living on a council estate in Nottingham who were becoming increasingly worried about the number of what they called “asylum seekers” living in an already very poor and under-resourced neighbourhood.
The tensions on the estate had been rising for some time due to housing waiting lists, the lack of housing, and the length of time people were waiting to see a GP. Although the women did not blame the asylum seekers exclusively, they could see the added pressure on services.
But they told me that they were most unhappy and frightened that every day, as they walked through the precinct, a group of men they referred to as “Iraqis” were constantly asking them for “business”, meaning sex. It happened to me on several occasions. The women felt angry and disrespected at these incidents.
One woman told me that she and a group of women had “battered” (physically attacked) “one of the Iraqi asylum seekers” for asking to buy sex from one of the women’s 15-year-old daughter. When I spoke to this woman about it, she said: “Why should we be the only ones having to put up with this?” (The refugee crisis will hit the UK’s working class areas hardest, The Guardian, 16th September 2015)
This sort of thing definitely won’t happen in the good bishop’s neighbourhood. But the reason why elites don’t care about these White British women is because they’re “obstacles to progress.” And once Muslims have the numbers, they don’t ask for sex: they take it.

How does the staunchly feminist Labour party respond? It collaborates with the rapists. It was a Labour council that presided over the horrors of Rotherham, but worse things have gone on in bigger Labour-controlled cities like Sheffield, Manchester and Birmingham. Labour are a plague for the proletariat, not their protectors.

The same is true of older institutions in Britain. The New Testament speaks of “grievous wolves” preying on the Christian flock (Acts 20:29). That’s why Christian leaders are traditionally known as shepherds. Modern Anglican bishops have no time for tradition: they side with the wolves, not the flock. They don’t oppose our anti-Christian liberal elite because they are part of it, firmly committed to promoting a hostile alien religion on British soil.

But another factor is at work among the “senior lawyers, former law lords and retired judges” who want Britain flooded with Muslims. Is anyone surprised to learn that Lord Woolf, Lord Steyn, Alex Carlile, Sir Alan Moses and Sir Stephen Sedley are all Jewish? Or that Sedley’s father Bill, also a lawyer, was a “lifelong Communist”? These Jewish lawyers support hostile outsiders at the expense of native British Whites, but that attitude is absolutely typical of Jews living in Britain. Here is the Board of Jewish Deputies addressing the goyim:
Board calls on world leaders to act over refugee crisis
“You must not oppress foreigners. You know what it’s like to be a foreigner, for you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 23:9)”
The Board of Deputies expresses its horror and pain at the death of Aylan Kurdi, the three year old Syrian Kurdish boy who drowned alongside his brother Galip and their mother, Rehan off the coast of Turkey. The family are from Kobani, which has been subjected to some of the fiercest fighting between ISIS and Kurdish groups. We hope that the shocking photo which has made its way around the world will spur world leaders into action.
Senior Vice President Richard Verber said: “As war rages with unthinkable barbarity in the Middle East, we must be diligent in avoiding using dehumanising language when discussing this issue, particularly given the history of Jews in the UK — most of whom are descended from refugees. We must act with compassion and care towards our fellow human beings.” (Board calls on world leaders to act over refugee crisis, 3rd September 2015)
And here is Josh Jackman weeping for Aylan Kurdi at the Jewish Chronicle:
As Jews we should be outraged that Britain is not doing more to help refugees
This could have been you. This could have been your family. In another time, during another war, while other people suffered this fate. These are humans, escaping death, poverty and the destruction of their homelands, risking everything they have to search for safety.
Not for benefits, not for jobs or streets paved with gold. They come because the alternative is horrifying. The notion that this is the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War is by now widespread and widely accepted. And we should be outraged that Britain is not doing more to help.
Around 70,000 refugees from Nazi-occupied territories were welcomed to our shores before the outbreak of war, including 10,000 unaccompanied children. Those who came then and also during and after the unimaginable atrocities of the Holocaust – were they “pests”? “A swarm”? “Cockroaches”? Were Holocaust survivors “Skinny people looking sad”, as Katie Hopkins called refugees in The Sun five months ago?
Are we “under siege”, as the Daily Mail alleged last month? Of course not. There are around 126,000 refugees living in the UK, just 0.19 per cent of the total population (64.1 million people). This in a country which is 6.8 per cent urban. In England, the percentage of urban areas which are actually built on rather than left undeveloped is just 2.27 per cent.
We have the space. Do we have the humanity?
In the next few weeks, with Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, we will sweep away the old, welcome in the new and pray for forgiveness. We will ask for compassion from those we’ve committed wrongs against, and try to live better, more sympathetic lives.
Having fled from persecution more times than we count, Jews must not abandon their responsibility as humans just because our lives in Britain are relatively free from discrimination. We must stand up for those who have done nothing wrong, who are suffering as we have done. If we don’t, there will be no forgiveness from future generations. (As Jews we should be outraged that Britain is not doing more to help refugees, The Jewish Chronicle, 3rd September 2015)
It’s perfectly clear. Compassion, sympathy and sheltering the oppressed are all core Jewish values. Whatever else one may say about Jewish values, being pro-immigration as a general principle is not one of them. Quite rightly, Jews like Josh Jackman are outraged that Britain isn’t following the shining example of Israel, which has welcomed thousands of vulnerable refugees. Hasn’t it? Well, hundreds of refugees then. No? What about dozens? Apparently it’s not dozens either:
Israel starts building fence along border with Jordan
Israel began construction of a fence along its border with Jordan on Sunday [6 Sept 2015], Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced at a weekly cabinet meeting. “Today, we are starting to build a fence on our eastern border,” he said Sunday. “In the first stage, we will build it from Timna to Eilat in order to protect the airport being built there, and we will continue the fence up to the Golan Heights, where we have already built a strong security fence.
“To the extent that it is possible we will encompass Israel’s borders with a security fence and barriers that will allow us to control our borders,” Netanyahu said. “We will not allow Israel to be flooded with illegal migrants and terrorists.” (Israel starts building fence along border with Jordan, CNN, 7th September 2015)
What a paradox! Compassion and sheltering the oppressed are core Jewish values, but the only Jewish nation in the world doesn’t follow them. Why is Josh Jackman not calling on Jews to be “outraged” at Israel’s inhumanity? Why is the Board of Deputies not demanding that Benjamin Netanyahu “act with compassion and care towards [his] fellow human beings”? Woolf, Steyn, Moses and other Jewish lawyers want “safe and legal routes” for refugees fleeing Syria. What could be safer than the short overland journey to the Golan Heights, as controlled by Israel?

But Jewish “outrage” at Britain and silence about Israel can’t be called hypocrisy or treachery. Jews in the Diaspora “look at mass  Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety.” And if it goes wrong in Britain, they will simply leave.

Of course, if Jews left, it would be an unthinkable disaster for Europe. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, a member of the U.K. House of Lords who served as Britain’s chief Orthodox rabbi from 1991 to 2013, recently stated that “if Europe ever lost its Jews it will have lost its soul.”

The anti-White BBC apparatchik Danny Cohen said this last year: “I’ve never felt so uncomfortable being a Jew in the UK as I’ve felt in the last 12 months. And it’s made me think about, you know, is it our long-term home, actually?”

Cohen’s discomfort is caused by Muslim anti-Semitism, and he may be off a less enriched country: he’s leaving the BBC and was “offered a big US role in the summer.” The Guardian praises him for “getting rid” of Jeremy Clarkson, who presented the internationally successful Top Gear. Progressives abhorred Clarkson’s racism, sexism and homophobia, you see. They want to replace stale pale males like him with vibrant Muslims and Blacks who are relatively prone to raping women and putting gays in hospital. Progressives aren’t simply traitors to the White working-class: they betray their own sacred causes because they despise White Britain more than they care about their moral values. Decade after decade they’ve sent a simple message to the little folk: “We posture — you pay.”

That is changing fast. Look at Sweden. It’s Ground Zero for progressive lunacy in Europe, but the “anti-immigration, far-right Sweden Democrats are now the country’s most popular party.” As similar parties rise across Europe, the treachery and anti-democratic attitudes of the progressive elite will become more obvious to more people. It’s a virtuous circle and it isn’t going to end well for the elite. We can’t blame Muslims and Blacks for taking advantage of liberal treachery. But the liberal elite think of themselves as sophisticated and intelligent. They can be blamed for their lunacy. And liberal posturers across Europe may be about to do something they never suspected they’d do: pay for their posturing.

The Importance of Historical and Global Awareness: My Brief Thoughts on 1984

via Occident Invicta

Inspired by Dota’s old post on 1984, I recently finished reading George Orwell’s dystopian novel. This won’t be an extensive review, as he already covered the book’s most pertinent points; I will likewise presume that readers are already familiar with the main plot, so I won’t provide much context.

(in other words, Spoiler Alert!)

While Dota highlighted several relevant themes from the book, one particular chapter deeply resonated with me. During the part where Winston Smith was reading a chapter of “the book” written by dissident rebel Emmanuel Goldstein (or O’Brien, depending on your point of view), a brief passage warrants quotation (emphasis mine):
“The alteration of the past is necessary for two reasons, one of which is subsidiary and, so to speak, precautionary. The subsidiary reason is that the Party member, like the proletarian, tolerates present-day conditions partly because he has no standards of comparison. He must be cut off from the past, just as he must be cut off from foreign countries, because it is necessary for him to believe that he is better off than his ancestors and that the average level of material comfort is constantly rising.”
That got me thinking about why modern white Americans tolerate so much rotten behavior from their depraved overlords. After reading 1984, I’ve come to conclude that many whites simply don’t have any standards of comparison; at best, their understanding of the non-American world is very shallow and clouded by blind American exceptionalism. This is what allows them to harbor so many delusions.

One could even make the case that most white Americans have mastered the art of “doublethink.” Despite proclaiming themselves to be “free” and “independent,” the truth belies such chest-thumping. Americans toil at jobs they hate, where they work longer hours and enjoy fewer days of vacation than citizens in every other developed country; and for all their efforts, most live paycheck-to-paycheck. While fancying themselves rugged individualists, countless Americans binge on credit and resign themselves to a quagmire of debt just to purchase the same consumer goods as everyone else. Those who produce said consumer goods – our current corporate oligarchs – frequently extol the virtues of hard work and competition. Never mind the countless government subsidies that they happily accept or even lobby for; never mind the frequent formation of monopolies in order to stifle competition.

I suspect that such contradictions and cognitive dissonance are the real culprits behind white America’s apathy. Many white Americans simply don’t know that there are alternatives to the current malaise of the US. They don’t recognize that countries such as Germany – its current lunacy notwithstanding – can enjoy the fruits of high productivity and competitiveness while not treating their workers like serfs. Deprived of such vital global knowledge, many Americans simply resign themselves to our current Gilded Age – all while putting on a big fake smile.

On a more cultural level, white Americans probably endorse (or at least accept) multiculturalism because they don’t recognize that neo-nazi extremism or bleeding heart humanism aren’t the only options. They aren’t cognizant of the kind of healthy nationalism that’s practiced by nations such as Japan. Whites recoil from nationalistic sentiments because they’re unaware that most groups around the world put self-interest first, and that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I’m certainly not suggesting that our elites conspire to keep Americans ignorant about the world; imperial hubris probably has more to do with America’s collective blindness. However, I also don’t think it’s entirely coincidental that Americans are so globally and historically illiterate. After all, people who are blind to the existence of greener grass are more inclined to put up with their decaying brown lawns.

In conclusion, studying history and global events is vital because it allows us to resist plutocratic, anti-white American propaganda. At least for me personally, my knowledge of world history and current events has strengthened my alt right convictions. I now know that far from being extreme, my views are more sane than those espoused by mainstream Americans. I also know that nothing about the American experiment is natural or inevitable; with time and persistence, it can be challenged.

Therefore, I exhort you to defy our current Inner Party by becoming a true citizen of the world.

Tommy Robinson Speaks to 40,000 Strong Crowd at German Anti-Invasion Rally

via Britannia

Robinson told the assembled crowd Merkel is
handing out the birth right of German citizens
like she is handing out candy to children
The founder of the EDL has addressed a 40,000-strong crowd in Dresden tonight, as Germany's far-right celebrates the first anniversary of the anti-refugee group Pegida. 

Tommy Robinson, who set up and led the English Defence League, looked out over the crowd of tens of thousands of Germans as police braced themselves for violence.  

Despite quitting the far-right group two years ago, after a realisation that his group was 'part of the problem', this is Robinson's second appearance at a Pegida rally this week after appearing at a Pegida anti-Islam rally in Holland last weekend.

The 32-year-old told the assembled crowd: 'Do not let Germany be dragged back to chaos and destruction. All of your progress is now threatened.

'Your current chancellor, Angela Merkel, seems to be handing out the birth right of German citizens like she is handing out candy to children.'

Huge crowds: Pegida demonstrators gathered in front of the Semper opera house in Dresden, Germany

He continued: 'The current charge held against all of us is that the refugee crisis is similar to World War Two. And like then, we are supposed to respond with great generosity.

'The difference of course, which we are not permitted to speak about, is the two evils: terrorism and ideology.

'We are offered silence, free speech is all but dead in Europe. We live in a post free speech era, the attacks on Charlie Hebdo have proven that to the whole world.

Only in assemblies like these can the truth be spoken about. And those like me who speak out about the dangers facing our countries, we’re confronted with death threats. We face harassment and persecution.'

He added: 'Every country has the right to defend themselves, including Israel. And of course so does every country in Europe, including Germany.

'I encourage you people to refuse the shame game. Refuse to feel guilty. Germany is not obliged to save the refugee crisis. 

'This current immigration is an invasion. Our borders are being overrun. There is little or no control. A country that cannot control its borders will soon not be a country.' 

He finished: 'We need one banner. Save our culture. Save our country. Save our future. Unite to save a future for our children.'

Protesters with an anti-Islam banner
The rally has continued into the night, as senior German officials warned that the extremist movement is stirring up hatred that could lead to clashes.

Chancellor Angela Merkel has been targeted by supporters of the movement, who accused her of 'treason' after she opened the country's borders to refugees.  

Treason': Many of the banners were directed at the chancellor Angela Merkel, including one of her in a military uniform with a Euro armband.

The Pegida movement has expanded rapidly over the summer as the migrant crisis worsened, with the crowds turning up to rallies growing by the week.

The movement, which stands for ‘Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident’, first emerged as an anti-Islam movement in October 2014, organising weekly demonstrations against what it termed the ‘Islamisation’ of the western world. 

It had all but vanished after pictures surfaced in January of its co-founder Lutz Bachmann sporting a Hitler moustache.

But it has made a sudden comeback since September, after Chancellor Angela Merkel opened the country’s borders to refugees.

Angry protesters have accused her of ‘treason’ and last week carried a mock gallows with Merkel’s name on it.

Many of the banners on show at the rally today are directed at the chancellor, including one of her in a military uniform with a Euro armband. 

Elsewhere in Europe, the migrant influx has boosted support for populist right-wing parties.

A Swiss populist party known for its virulent campaigns against immigration, the EU and Islam won a record number of seats in parliamentary elections on Sunday.

In Germany, Merkel has faced a dip in opinion polls and a rebellion in her own conservative ranks, especially in the southern state of Bavaria, the main gateway for migrants.

While the Bavarian CSU party wants to establish ‘transit zones’ along the Austrian border to hold and register asylum seekers, a police union chief has called for a fence to secure the Alpine frontier.

A group of 188 of the 310 lawmakers in Merkel’s conservative block has doubts about her refugee policy, and its chairman Christian von Stetten said considering ‘border fortifications’ must ‘not be taboo’ according to newspaper Bild.

The Fash Awakens: Is the Latest Star Wars Film yet More Evidence of White Genocide?

via Radix

As fanboys around the world awaited the latest Star Wars trailer, Twitter spoiled the party

Raw Story:
. . .
Apparently a group of people are planning to boycott the upcoming Star Wars VII movie because its cast is fronted by a woman and a black man, according to the Mary Sue. The fact the cast isn’t as white and male-dominated as the previous iterations of the space adventure series has some escalating things rather quickly, claiming it points to white genocide.
Liberals are getting mad at people for noticing something that is manifestly true—and something that was, no doubt, discussed in detail at the all-White and Jewish productions meetings in which the Force Awakens script and casting were hashed out. The galaxy is being diversified. And Hollywood is selling a post-White future, not through revenge fantasies like Django Unchanged, but through the nostalgia trip of a new Star Wars movie.

Before we decide to sit this next one out, it’s worth exploring the ways in which the Star Wars universe is much more ambiguous—or ambivalent, in a Freudian sense—than most recognize.

When the cultural phenomenon of the original Star Wars (1977)[1] is discussed, most claim that audiences were attracted to a story of “Good vs. Evil” (with Good triumphing), a welcome change from the messy cinema of the 1970s. Star Wars, in this way, resonated with Christian theology, as well as American messianism, embodied in Ronald Reagan’s call for righteous America to defeat the “Evil Empire.”

Perhaps that was true. But ultimately, the texts of the Star Wars films are not informed by Manichean dualism (that is, Good vs. Evil). In Star Wars, there is one Force—“Its energy surrounds us and binds us”—with a Dark and Light side. And with Anakin and Luke Skywalker, the Light and the Dark exist within the same human heart.

When Luke is training in The Empire Strikes Back, he asks Yoda, “Is the Dark side stronger?” Yoda answers, “No, no, no,” essentially brushing off the question. Some might assume that Yoda meant to imply that the Light side is stronger and will inevitably triumph. But that is not what he said. And Yoda—that is, George Lucas and screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan[2]—knows all too well that this is not the case. The Force is the ally of Darth Vader and the Emperor just as much as it is the ally of Yoda and the Jedi, maybe more so. Yoda warns Luke of the dangers of the Dark Side (namely, anger, hate, fear, and pride); nevertheless, Yoda and the Jedi embody the weaknesses of the Light. The Jedi’s pacific, Buddhistic conception of the Force makes them indecisive, impotent losers. Indeed, in the Prequels—at the height of Jedi Power—Yoda and the Council resemble neutered academics presiding over interminable committee meetings. In Yoda’s words, “Failed, I have.” And unlike the Jedi, The Empire can genuinely claim to be bringing order and rightness to the Galaxy.

This ambivalent nature of the Force informs the political resonances embedded in The Force Awakens. In the original trilogy, The Empire reminded many of Soviet Communism, maybe even of the British Empire of old, with upper-class Englishmen, like Peter Cushing and Julian Glover, cast as villains. But the unspoken, obscene model of The Empire is undoubtedly The Third Reich. In The Force Awakens, Abrams and Kasdan have turned the dial up many notches. The remains of The Empire, now called The First Order, are presented in tableaus that are nothing less than Riefenstahl-esque. Take these, for instance, from Star Wars’s official Instagram account.

So what is the message? Much like the Force, there are Dark and Light sides. The exoteric message is, of course, that we should root on the scrappy, multicultural—indeed, multi-species—band of “Rebels” as they battle the mean ol’ fascists.

The esoteric message is more complicated. I think Abrams and Kasdan are telling us that the spirit of fascism—that of hierarchy, greatness, dominance, and overcoming—is ever-present in the postmodern world, even if it seems defeated and must act in a subterranean space. Fascism is just as much a potentiality of the contemporary Zeitgeist as is the “Rebel Alliance” (which was always unfit for rule and never actually “won” at the end of Return of the Jedi). The great lightsaber battle in The Force Awakens thus seems to be between a “Knight of Ren” and a young Black man who’d seem at home among #BlackLivesMatter protesters.

So as opposed to boycotting Star Wars—and effectively allowing our enemies to dictate what culture means—why not go see the film, and see it through our eyes?

And Star Wars is not the only product of contemporary pop culture in which a thin line separates propaganda and subversion.

  1. No, I’m not going to call it A New Hope. In the original crawl, it was just Star Wars, with no episode number. It only became A New Hope in the 1981 re-release, the first time Lucas imaged making Prequels. ↩︎
  2. Notably, Kasdan penned both The Empire Strikes Back, the greatest Star Wars film in an uneven franchise, and The Force Awakens. ↩︎

The Battle between Intelligence and Wisdom

via Alternative Right

The problem with Whites is that we are way too intelligent. Intelligence can doubtless be defined a million ways – a sure sign of intelligence in itself – but, in essence, it is the ability to overuse the brain so that it doesn’t function properly; and by “function” I mean support the very simple purposes for which it was evolved: socialize, group-bond, maintain identity, resist aggression, breed, protect, survive, and expand. Of course intelligence makes us feel good about ourselves, but, also, as opposed to wisdom, it is the enemy.

A little etymology:
intelligence (n.) late 14c., "faculty of understanding," from Old French intelligence (12c.), from Latin intelligentia, intellegentia "understanding, power of discerning; art, skill, taste," from intelligentem (nominative intelligens) "discerning," present participle of intelligere "to understand, comprehend," from inter- "between" (see inter-) + legere "choose, pick out, read" (see lecture (n.)). Meaning superior understanding, sagacity" is from early 15c. Sense of "information, news" first recorded mid-15c., especially "secret information from spies" (1580s). Intelligence quotient first recorded 1921 (see I.Q.).

wisdom (n.) Old English wisdom, from wis (see wise (adj.)) + -dom. A common Germanic compound (cf. Old Saxon, Old Frisian wisdom, Old Norse visdomr, Old High German wistuom "wisdom," German Weistum "judicial sentence serving as a precedent"). Wisdom teeth so called from 1848 (earlier teeth of wisdom, 1660s), a loan-translation of Latin dentes sapientiae, itself a loan-translation of Greek sophronisteres (used by Hippocrates, from sophron "prudent, self-controlled"), so called because they usually appear ages 17-25, when a person reaches adulthood.
OK, what does this prove? First of all, intelligence is newer (from a twelfth-century French word), and compared to wisdom, has a much busier etymology. It clearly has its roots in medieval scholasticism; y’know, all that nonsense about how many seraphim can ice-skate on the back of thumb tack, and was probably used by England's Norman upper classes and imported clergy to "signal" how "socially superior" they were over the downtrodden Saxon masses.

Wisdom is as old as English itself, more organic – literally so with reference to the teeth – and rooted in folk and tradition ("precedent"). It's definition is much more static, like a sacred stone that has stood there for centuries, soaking up a power that it now emits.

Intelligence, by contrast is busy, busy, busy. It implies information overload ("comprehend," "read, " "sense of information," "news") and frantically thinking about things ("understanding," "choose," "power of discerning,"  "pick out"). Its roots in scholasticism also give it a quality of adhering to words and rules, and extrapolating into the future, rather than looking to the past. It clearly has a lot more moving parts – and we all know what that means.

Wisdom is more Zen-like, an unattached cognizance of things as they are, condensing in the right decision (whenever a decision is necessary). Intelligence is the opposite – over-attached to details, logical points, and cute little demonstrations of cleverness – jumping to conclusions too early, and then dancing around facts with bells on its ears. A perfect synonym for it is sophistry.

Wisdom, by contrast, is centred and stately. It represents impressions, facts, and innate truths fusing together seamlessly in a greater sense of truth. While wisdom unites, intelligence divides. It focuses on splitting hairs, nitpicking, cherry-picking, setting off egos, creating factions. It also has a constant need to validate itself and to be praised, like a garrulous woman with too much make-up. It is hollow and socially noisy. Wisdom by contrast is quieter and more assured. To put it in manosphere terms, wisdom is clearly the alpha, whose silence is only a measure of how loud he can roar, while intelligence is the irritating beta, constantly buzzing around, seeking the attention he isn't getting.

From this, it should be obvious which works best, and why the world and the West is in such a mess. Politically wisdom is of the right, intelligence of the left. But for decades now we have been living in a world of busy intelligence that has snubbed wisdom, a world where we have been cleverly explaining why things don't work and why they will work if only we do this, that, or the other, all the time digging our hole-shaped society deeper and deeper. We have chosen intelligence over wisdom purely for economic reasons, as stupidity has always been a great way to stimulate the economy.

Things are really a lot simpler than intelligence would have you believe. The truth is all around us all the time, and the more mistakes we make the harder reality hits us over the head. At present it's practically hitting us over the head with a sledge hammer 24-7. Only those with their heads tightly swaddled with the particularly dense form of stupidity that intelligence is capable of, could fail to notice.

Why Can We Question Anything but the “Holocaust”?: Man Targeted for Holding Politically Incorrect Beliefs

via The Realist Report

In an environment where intellectual curiosity should be rewarded, a student trustee with California’s Los Rios Community College District faced a potential recall following a candid and provocative interview he gave to a college newspaper that delved into the most controversial subject in the world today, the “Holocaust.”

Los Rios comprises four separate community colleges in Sacramento and the surrounding region. Cosumnes River College, Folsom Lake College, Sacramento City College and American River College together make up the District, serving roughly 80,000 students.

Cameron Weaver, 26, was elected to the position of Los Rios student trustee in an April election and has served in the position since June of this year. Prior to that, he had been in student government and even contributed to the school newspaper, the American River Current.

In an interview with Barbara Harvey, a “journalist” and web editor with the Current, Weaver cited a popular YouTube video highlighting various newspaper articles prior to World War II that specifically described “6 million Jews” who were allegedly being persecuted in Russia and other parts of eastern Europe. Many of these articles noted that the Jews of Russia, Ukraine, Poland and other parts of Europe were facing severe oppression, discrimination and abuse, with many ultimately suffering and dying under horrific conditions. (Watch the video linked to Harvey’s name where she was interviewed to gain an understanding of how efficient the Jewish-controlled elite media’s brainwashing has been.—Ed.]

Numerous revisionists, including Don Heddesheimer, author of The First Holocaust: Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns with Holocaust Claims During & After World War One, have argued that the “6 million Jews” murdered at the hands of white Christian European peoples, a fabricated and false historical narrative officially institutionalized following the defeat of National Socialist Germany, has a long history going back well before WWII even began.

“In these newspapers, there was a very conflicting thing I noticed: There was continual reporting that 6 million Jewish people were facing a lot of [suffering]—they were facing starvation, being evicted from their homes, over in Russia, and then three years later it changed to Ukrainia,” Weaver explained during the interview.

Weaver clearly distanced himself from people who say “the Holocaust didn’t happen,” arguing that he does not know all the facts of the matter, and just found the “6 million Jews” figure, which has been endlessly promoted and repeated by the mass media—even prior to WWII—quite revealing and worthy of open and honest discussion.

During the highly edited audio interview released online, Weaver described himself as “very skeptical” of official government and mass media pronouncements, and presented himself as an independent and critical thinker.

In the conversation, which covered a broad range of topics, Weaver, a political science major who is considering pursuing a career in politics and public service, noted that the 9-11 attack was a major motivating factor in his decision to study politics. Casting doubt on the official conspiracy theory explaining the events of 9-11 as outlined in the official 9-11 Commission Report, Weaver stated: “As the months and the years progress, you get a little bit older, you get a little bit more able to think for yourself, and I just look back and go over what has transpired since 9-11, the facts or the data that’s publicly available since 9-11, and I’m disgusted. I’m disgusted that there’s been so many things given to the public that omit the key things that really detail what the 9-11 Commission didn’t go over when they did their report.”

Weaver stated he believed Saudi Arabia played a key role in planning and executing the events of 9-11, which has been covered up and hidden from the American public. He also criticized the promotion of childhood vaccinations and stated “that antidepressants play a role in high-profile shootings—something he alleges the Food and Drug Administration may be covering up,” according to the Current article.

Los Rios officials have blasted Weaver for his comments, with District President of the Board of Trustees Dustin Johnson describing his statements as “troubling, misguided and abhorrent to the views and values of the seven publicly elected members of the board of trustees.” Los Rios Chancellor Brian King stated: “The Board of Trustees and the Los Rios administration jointly denounce the deplorable comments attributed to the student trustee.”

In an email to the Los Rios Board of Trustees and Chancellor King, Weaver stated that the report in the Current “does not accurately reflect my views, beliefs or convictions.”

“My top priority from this point forward is to work to rebuild those relationships, and rebuild your trust in me as someone who is worthy of the student trustee position, and who can intelligently and passionately represent our students on the Los Rios Board,” Weaver wrote to school officials.

Mitchel Benson, associate vice chancellor for communications and media relations for Los Rios, explained in a statement to The Sacramento Bee that “Cameron’s future is in the same hands of people that elected him and not in the hands of the trustees.”

While some members of the student government, including the student senate president, have expressed support for Weaver, others are calling for his recall.

Although the student senate voted seven to two against recalling Weaver, a clear and resounding message has been sent to him and across this country to anyone else, anywhere: do not question the “Holocaust.”

Blaming the Jews

via Renegade Tribune

Young Jewish "men" accost a Palestinian woman
BAXTER:  “It’s not fair to consider low-level Jews knowledgeable about real history and real politics when they too are as brainwashed as the gentiles. The world operates in a pyramidal fashion on a need to know basis, and most Jews are not in the inner circle. They are in effect Shabbos goyim, like most gentiles. The crimes of the Jews are committed by a small extremist Zionist faction that is rather well camouflaged by your everyday Jew who most likely is ignorant and innocent.”

“Don’t blame us! We’re ignorant and innocent!”
RON CHAPMAN (in answer to Baxter): I disagree. This sounds plausible but it isn’t. Why? Because those who claim to be Jews are part of a racist, ethnocentric, genocidal political COLLECTIVE, the members of which are steeped in and support Talmudic ideology.

Being a Jew is an ideological choice. It is NOT genetic. Jews are not a “race” and criticising Jews is NOT racist. Moreover, as very few Jews are Semites, criticising Jews is NOT anti-Semitism. Anyone can be a Talmudist.

[Kyle’s note: Jews being a race is arguable, and “racist” is a jewish term]

We have it on good authority that “By their fruits you shall know them.” Talmudism (i.e. Judaism) is a pseudo-religion and it is the only “religion” that incorporates lying (see Kol Nidrei) as a central doctrinal tenet. Any member of a COLLECTIVE that has such a core communal ritual as the Kol Nidre cannot be trusted whether they are a “low level everyday” member or a rabbi or other leader.

Even today “low level everyday” Jews (and almost everyone else due to lying Judaic propaganda) have no problem vilifying Germans for the falsely alleged Holocaust and other nameless atrocities the Jews libellously claim were committed by Germans over 70 years ago, i.e.,  shortly before and during WWII.

Moreover, Jews, AS A COLLECTIVE, benefit enormously from proclaiming their Judaism AND reaping the political, financial, vocational and cultural benefits arising from the avalanche of Talmudic lies they and their leaders spew all over the world about the non-existent Holocaust and other falsely alleged German crimes against Jews.

In effect, ANYONE who publicly professes to being a Jew is publicly endorsing those Judaic lies and proclaiming s/he is a genocidal Talmudic Torahite who, at least tacitly, endorses the entire corpus of Judaic lies which enable global Jewry to parasitically live off non-Jews. That process has caused incredible suffering to the entire Geman nation and almost everyone else except Jews. Imagine what our world would be like without usurious Judaic banking and the wars constantly forced upon goyim for Judaic profits. Not to mention the stress and misery inflicted on humanity by the suppression of technologies developed by Tesla, Royal Raymond Rife et al during the last century.

The fact that “low level, everyday Jews” complacently live comfortably ignorant lives ensconced in their Talmudic arrogance does not absolve them from their portion of responsibility for the damage to humanity and the planet that their people as a COLLECTIVE have inflicted on mankind.

Arguably, as a COLLECTIVE, Jews are more culpable than those complacently ignorant and arrogant Amerikkan goyim who claim they bear no responsibility for the incredible suffering, misery and death inflicted upon humanity by rapacious Anglo-USraeli corporations and military. But in either case cognitive dissonance and ignorant self-delusion is no excuse for those who the capacity to know the truth.

The resultant global dystopia caused by Talmudic thought and activity has all but destroyed humanity and this planet.

The so-called “low level everyday Jew” is an intrinsic part of the covert Judaic Empire which controls the US, UK, EU, France, Norway, Sweden, Ukraine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and many other countries.

As there are only about 14 million professing Jews in our world, it is ludicrous to suggest that the overwhelming bulk of these Jews — i.e., the so-called “everyday Jews” — are innocent parties in the gigantic Judaic conspiracy to control, enslave and genocide over 7.5 billion non-Jews.

Apart from the fact that Jewish communities in all nations form a subversive FIFTH COLUMN that undermines their respective host nations spiritually, financially, politically, economically, culturally and socially, “everyday Jews” provide about a million covert sayanim helpers for MOSSAD around the world.

There is probably an even larger number of Jews who act as hasbara agents, promoting the Judaic political agenda through governments, NGOs, academia, the Jew controlled mainstream media, Hollywood, and the internet — as well as in schools, galleries, theatres, museums and political parties.

The malign influence of Jews collectively is ubiquitous.

The Épuration: An Intellectual & Political Purge

via Counter-Currents

Robert Brasillach on trial
Translator’s Note: “Épuration,” literally meaning “purge,” “cleansing,” or “purification,” was the process of killing, imprisoning, ostracizing, or otherwise punishing those deemed to have been traitors by the Gaullist government and the Resistance following the eviction of German forces from France in 1944-45.

The following is taken from Dominique Venner’s Histoire de la Collaboration (Paris: Gérard Watelet/Pygmalion, 2000), 207-16. The title is editorial.

The word “épuration” has an unequivocal meaning. In other epochs, men would speak of ethnic, political, or ideological “purification.” It is used for the exclusion of individuals deemed unworthy of belonging to a party or a social group. Its political and ideological character is evident.

An épuration légale[1] had been called for as early as the Anglo-Saxon landing in North Africa in November 1942 by five parliamentarians exiled in London: Pierre-Bloch, Paul Antier, Félix Gouin, Max Hymans, and Pierre Mendès France. In a letter to President Roosevelt, they wrote: “French public opinion would not understand that the enemy’s accomplices and servants could continue to exercise any authority in the liberated territories.” Quoting this astonishing letter addressed to a foreign head of State against their compatriots, [the historian] Robert Aron observes that these “five representatives of the people [. . .] were still but isolated survivors of the republican collapse.”[2]

The judicial and administrative purge would be instituted by the Provisional Assembly of Algiers during the sessions of 11 and 12 January, 1944, and then of July 10, 1944. The order signed by General de Gaulle on June 26, 1944 instituted courts of justice, at the administrative center of every court of appeals’ jurisdiction, charged with ruling on events between June 16, 1940 and the Liberation “which reveal the intention of promoting endeavors of the enemy’s of any kind, and this, notwithstanding any legislation in force.” This then could cover mere crimes of opinion or actions allowed under existing law.

The courts of justice were partisan emergency courts. They had the same rules of procedure as assize courts, but limited their judges to one professional magistrate who presided and to five juries chosen from a list of resisters. The governmental commissioner replaced the public ministry [as representative]. The condemned could appeal to the court of cassation and ask for a pardon.[3]

The administrative purge was regulated by the orders of June 27, 1944 and November 28, 1944, which created purge councils charged with taking disciplinary measures against civil servants, soldiers, and equivalent, up to dismissal without pay or pension. According to the study published by François Rouquet (XXème Siècle, January-March 1992, 106-17), some 22,000 to 28,000 civil servants would be punished, including 9,508 at the Interior, about 4,000 at the National Education, 4,892 in the SNCF [national rail service], 2,591 in the PTT [Post, Telegraphy & Telephones], etc.

Of all the professional categories, it was journalists and writers who were the hardest hit, which evidently underscores the ideological character of the conflict and of the épuration. The proportion of writers and journalists executed, imprisoned, or banned from their profession was greater than for all other categories. Need we recall the murders of Albert Clément, Philippe Henriot, and Robert Denoël, the suicide of Drieu La Rochelle, the pretrial death in prison of Paul Allard, the executions of Georges Suarez, Robert Brasillach, Jean Luchaire, Jean Hérold-Paquis, Hubert Huin, Paul Riche, or Paul Chack, the death sentences commuted to harsh punishments which struck Lucien Rebatet, Pierre-Antoine Cousteau, Claude Jeantet, Henri Béraud, André Algarron, Robert de Beauplan, etc. Those who expressed ideas were attacked far more than businessmen who had promoted the German war industry. The professional bans decreed by the CNE [National Writers’ Committee][4] in September 1944 affected 160 writers and journalists. The creation of a journalist ID card was part of the same logic because at its inception, its granting was dependent on the agreement of a political commission whose role was to exclude a wrongly thinking category from the profession.

The decree of May 26, 1944 ordered the suspension of all newspapers that had continued to be published fifteen days after June 25, 1940 in the northern zone and fifteen days after November 11, 1942 in the southern zone. Most newspapers which had been published during the Occupation would thus disappear. Their goods, offices, and printers would be confiscated or given to newspapers stemming from the Resistance. A National Society for Press Companies (SNEP) would be formed so that not only the newspapers with lots of capital could publish and be capable of buying printers.[5]

A decree signed by General de Gaulle on August 26, 1944 instituted an unprecedented retroactive crime, that of national indignity, and a punishment, national degradation. “Any Frenchman who, even without violating existing penal law, has made himself guilty of a manifestly anti-national activity, is to be downgraded; he is an unworthy citizen whose rights must be limited to the extent he has ignored his duties.” This law legitimized the persecution not merely of actions but of attitudes and opinions expressed from June 16, 1940 onwards, that is to say sometimes more than four years before its publication in the Official Journal.[6] What is a “manifestly anti-national activity”? The idea a Pétainist had of this was evidently not the same as that of a Gaullist or a Communist.

The consequences would be dire for a considerable number of honorable men, and for the lives of very numerous families deprived of resources by the ban on exercising certain professions due to national degradation. This could be for life or for a determined amount of time. It deprived the condemned of the right to vote, of eligibility for elections, and of all civil rights. It removed one’s rank in the military, dismissed or excluded them from employment in public offices and State bodies, deprived them of the possibility of being a jury, an expert witness, an arbitrator, a lawyer, a notary, a solicitor, a teacher or a supervisor, a director or a mere employee in a press, radio, or cinema company, a journalist, a company manager, director or secretary-general of a bank or insurance company, etc. Almost 50,000 “unworthy nationals,” that would mean 200,000 or 250,000 people directly affected, reduced to poverty, sometimes to destitution by the loss of the breadwinner’s work. It is at the very least paradoxical that, all the while attacking Vichy for its laws excluding Freemasons and Jews, the opponents of these measures would in turn institute the exclusion of groups of citizens whom they did not like.

The Exclusion of a Category of Frenchmen

The statistics of the épuration légale are obviously better kept than those of the épuration sauvage.[7] When the last court of justice ended its activities in 1951, the number of cases ruled amounted to 57,954, to which must be added the 69,797 cases decided by the civil chambers [a subset of special courts], and those of the High Court (ruling on members of the government and equivalent). The results do not take into account of death sentences by court martial, whose numbers are not known:
  • Death sentences in presence of the accused: 2,853
  • Death sentences in abstentia: 3,910
  • Executed death sentences: 767
  • Forced labor in perpetuity: 2,777
  • Forced labor for a duration of time: 10,434
  • Solitary confinement [réclusion]: 2,173
  • Imprisonment: 24,116
  • National degradation: 49,723
For its part, the High Court looked at 108 cases, gave 8 death sentences, including 3 which were executed (Laval, Darnand, Brinon), 42 dismissed cases [for lack of evidence], 16 guilty verdicts in abstentia, 3 acquittals, 17 prison sentences, 14 sentences of national degradation, including 7 dismissals “for services rendered” [to the nation].

These statistics do not take into account the very numerous legal and illegal imprisonments in preventive detention, either in administrative offices, in private prisons, or in the internment camps, which numbered in the hundreds of thousands.

A Horrifying Waste

[. . . ] Le Figaro of April 6, 1946 estimated the number of people arrested during the summer of 1944 at 1 million. According to Philippe Bourdrel (L’Épuration sauvage, volume 2, 394): “we estimate that there were 600,000 to 700,000 people extra-judicially imprisoned between August 20 and October 1, 1944. There were still 250,000 detainees in November 1944.” In his Letter to the Leaders of the Resistance, the writer and former resister Jean Paulhan wrote: “It is no exaggeration to estimate the number of Frenchmen affected in some or another by the crimes of the épuration at between 1,500,000 to 2,000,000.”[8]

For her part, the former communist Annie Kriegel wrote in her memoirs:
It took me a long time to understand, if only as a historian, that, instrumentalized, the épuration had been, in the minds of Communists, less a procedure for eliminating “traitors” than a means of dislocating institutions and political and social forces likely to oppose their hegemony.[9]

In their dryness, these numbers give an idea of what was the civil war and “revolution” of 1944. What they do not say, is the weight of sufferings, the most often silent or hidden.

Was this what had wanted the non-communist resisters, when they dreamed of a liberated France, but also of a regenerated and united France, restored to her past splendor? After having suffered the frightening disaster of 1940, followed by a cruel occupation and a destructive civil war, one cannot but think the tragedy of this country, once so great, has but few examples in history.

Many resisters, sometimes very early on, spoke out against the excesses of the épuration and argued for a reconciliation. [. . .] François Mauriac and Jean Paulhan [took action] in favor of intellectuals. Less known is the account of Colonel Passy (Dewavrin), founder and chief of Free France’s secret services from June 1940 onwards. In 1949, he learned of the memoirs of Pierre Pucheau [a Vichy minister who had attempted to join the Free French and, to his surprise, was executed by them]. This reading reawakened in him the memory of the trial [Pucheu’s] he had witnessed in Algiers in March 1944:

I came out of it sickened and, for the first time since the dark days of June 1940, full of a mad anxiety. That day, indeed, I felt that the hopes that most of us had imagined, in the Free French Forces, would be brutally disappointed. I realized completely and all at once, like a an astounding slap, that this world, bettered and renovated by common suffering and struggle, of which we had dreamed, was dead before having been born.[10]

Given who the author was, this is perhaps the most definitive statement that has been written on the frightful waste that was the Franco-French conflict.

In the past, after other inexpiable and bloody divisions, reconcilers had always been found. But after the civil war of 1943-44, for her misfortune, France did not find within herself a figure analogous to what had been in their day Henry IV or Napoleon. To the contrary, she would never cease, morbidly, to reopen old wounds.

1. “Legal purge.” – GD
2. Robert Aron, Histoire de l’Épuration, volume 1 (Fayard, 1967), 67-68.
3. Of the 1,594 death sentences submitted to General de Gaulle up to January 1946 (112 by court martial, 1,212 par the courts of justice, and 270 by other jurisdictions), he would use his pardoning power 998 times, and so 596 of those sentenced would executed. See Robert Aron, Histoire de l’Épuration, volume 2 (Fayard, 1969), 35.
4. The CNE was a Resistance organization founded by the Communists which unofficially designated writers to be punished for thought-crime after the Liberation. Many of these were indeed executed, imprisoned, punished, or generally ostracized. – GD
5. The French identitarian  writer and European civil servant Anne Kling reports that the first president of the SNEP was none other than Jean Pierre-Bloch, the Jewish Freemason and head of the International League against Anti-Semitism, ancestor to the LICRA. He was in charge of privatizing and distributing the resources seized from the press and, like a post-Soviet oligarch, became a millionaire by skimming off money into his pockets. Pierre-Bloch’s mismanagement provoked a scandal by 1947, but caused no lasting damage to his career. He would later receive a medal from the Supreme Soviet. It all hangs together! See Guillaume Durocher, “The Culture of Critique in France: A Review of Anne Kling’s Books on Jewish Influence,” The Occidental Observer, May 24, 2015. – GD
6. The French State’s official legislative record. – GD
7. The épuration sauvage, or “wild purge,” was the extra-judicial killings organized by the Resistance and the new authorities following the Liberation. These are estimated to have numbered between 9,000 and 100,000, with the historian Robert Aron citing 40,000. – GD
8. Philippe Bourdrel, Lettre aux directeurs de la Résistance (Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 1991).
9. Annie Kriegel, Ce que j’ai cru comprendre (Paris: Robert Laffont, 1991).
10. Colonel Passy-Dewavrin, “J’ai vu condamner Pucheu,” La Semaine économique, politique, financière, June 8, 1949, 2.