We invite King George III to come back and resume the throne. He could dissolve the Union, arrest the negro in the White House, and round up our so-called “representatives” in Congress.
In exchange for an apology and a promise to never misbehave again, we get lower taxes, a less intrusive government, secure borders, and an end to all the madness that has flowed from the “self evident” idea that “all men are created equal.”
What do you say?
Below, an abridged version of one of Brad Griffin’s recent articles of the “Amurrica Series: Constructive Solutions” at Occidental Dissent (OD), with some explanatory Wikipedia links added:
To my knowledge, OD is the only racialist site in existence that has defined the problem in painstaking detail (see the many discussions about this in our archives) and consistently hammers away at the only solution to the problem.
Historically speaking, the coalition between DWLs [Disingenuous White Liberals] and blacks goes back to the prewar abolitionist movement, when Northern reformers like William Lloyd Garrison forged the original alliance with free negroes like Frederick Douglass.
Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1843. Starting in 1865, Massachusetts began to lead the nation at the state level by passing comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, or civil rights laws. Blacks were already voters in Massachusetts before the War Between the States.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was vetoed by Andrew Johnson, who was subsequently impeached by Black Republicans in Congress, was the first stab at federal civil rights legislation in American history.
The Civil Rights Act of 1875, which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases in 1883, attempted to accomplish most of what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sought to do in the twentieth century. The Federal Elections Bill of 1890, which was defeated in the U.S. Senate, was the precursor of the Voting Rights Act.
In the twentieth century, Jewish influence had the effect of exacerbating a preexisting problem: Jews didn’t create the coalition between DWLs and blacks or even set its long term utopian goals of integration and eradicating racial prejudice.
In the late nineteenth century, the Jews came along like Hispanics and Asians would later do after the Immigration Act of 1965. They augmented the leftwing coalition with their wealth and media influence.
Jewish influence was more like, say, a necessary condition of the national triumph of the Left. Just like the rise of the mass media, the GI Bill and higher education, or Allied propaganda in the Second World War.
No, restrictive covenants was just one of many “discriminatory barriers” to the advancement of black freedom and equality. The poll tax and the white primary were similarly struck down by the Supreme Court in order to advance Americanism, which is to say, the identification of America (and ultimately the whole world, as it is progressively infected by the disease) with liberalism and democracy.
What was the intention of outlawing restrictive covenants? The intended effect was to advance black freedom. The intended effect of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 was to advance black freedom. The intended effect of the Voting Rights Act was to advance black freedom and equality by giving them the right to bloc vote in democratic legislatures.
In the North, restrictive covenants coexisted with a society that had been committed at the state and federal level to the larger project of integration ever since Massachusetts passed the first civil rights law in 1865. Minnesota barred school segregation in 1877. Michigan banned public accommodations segregation in 1885. New York banned public school segregation in 1894.
The demise of restrictive covenants was just the fall of one more domino at the hands of the same constituency of liberal utopian reformers (like the progression of cancer, spreading throughout the body) that had already succeeded in abolishing slavery and repealing anti-miscegenation laws and banning every other form of segregation.
The move into prohibiting “housing discrimination” was natural and consistent with a society already on a trajectory toward supporting affirmative action and banning “disparate impact.” Just like the abolition of slavery, it was one more reform that was consciously implemented to advance the positive ideal of black freedom and equality.
The bottom line here is that there is a constituency in America with a peculiar vision of “Americanism,” which they define as the never-ending ideological expansion of liberty, equality, and democracy, and the eradication of all barriers to these holy utopian ideals (racial, cultural, religious), whether foreign (Nazi Germany) or domestic (Confederacy), which has been driving America’s racial and culture decline ever since the abolitionist movement began in the 1830s, if not since the American Revolution began in the 1770s.
Who is this foe?
There is a long historical arc of racial and cultural decline that stretches from 1776 to 2012. It leapfrogs from one utopian reform to another without missing a beat: revolution to abolition to civil rights to women’s suffrage to world peace to feminism to gay marriage. The same people are usually involved in multiple liberal reform causes.
The instinctive goal of the revolutionary spirit is always to chew up and tear down traditions and established hierarchies, to “liberate” everything in its path, to “level” everything it finds, based on the assumption that nihilistic destruction of the existing social order is inherently good.
For some strange reason, each new utopian reform, each new degenerate movement to destroy the existing social order (whether it be revolution, abolition, civil rights, feminism, or fagging the military), is invariably launched into cultural orbit from the Northeast, and imposed on the holdouts in the rest of the country through the centralization of power in the federal government.
The Northeast never actually wins these cultural debates. Instead, it triumphs through imposing its ideal of Americanism on the rest of the country, usually through control of the centralized government in Washington. Then resistance collapses, submission and demoralization sets in, and we “move forward” to whatever beckons as the cutting edge of degeneracy.
OD is the only racialist website which observes this broad historical pattern, recognizes its importance, draws attention to its existence, and recommends disrupting it through the dissolution of the Union.
If an international border was drawn across the Mason-Dixon line, the cycle would accelerate in the rump of the Union, as it once did during the War Between the States and Reconstruction, because the force that is driving the whole process is and always has been based in the Northeast, and the secession of the South would increase its relative power in Washington.
The dissolution of the Union would fatally weaken the influence of “Americanism” worldwide. It would change the whole international order by fatally undermining Washington in its own backyard.
Alternatively, the preservation of the Union will exacerbate the problem by flooding the recalcitrant areas in the South and West with non-White immigrants dependent on the welfare state, who will politically align themselves with the cultural arsonists in the Northeast, thereby weakening the already diminished and retreating forces of conservatism in the United States.
Dissolving the Union and repudiating Americanism along with its demographic base is the only way to put an end to these never-ending cycles of liberal reform. Nothing else will suffice to arrest and reverse our decline.
Disunion is the solution.
That Whites have got a loose screw is patent even in the writing of the foremost expert on how the Jews are capitalizing on it. In an article at his webzine, The Occidental Observer, Kevin MacDonald put it in simple terms:
My view is that moral universalism and guilt are aspects of individualism as an ethnic trait of Europeans (see here, p. 23ff). These traits are profoundly maladaptive in the modern world where they have been used as swords by the historic enemies of Europeans and their civilization. European individualist culture creates morally defined ingroups rather than ingroups based on kinship, with high levels of altruistic punishment against violators. The Puritan-Yankee culture that was so influential in shaping America is a prominent example, as in the movement to abolish slavery in the 19th century and the Civil Rights movement in the 20th century. These morally defined ingroups function to prevent defection in societies not based on biological relatedness. Guilt then functions as a negative emotion motivating people to adhere to group norms. The success of the culture of the Holocaust in manufacturing guilt is testimony to the continuing success of this strategy.
The strategy of Jewish intellectual movements for destroying Europeans and their culture has been to convince the Europeans of their own moral bankruptcy. Jewish intellectual movements have presented Judaism as morally superior to European civilization and European civilization as morally bankrupt and the proper target of altruistic punishment. The consequence is that once Europeans are convinced of their own moral depravity, they will destroy their own people in a fit of altruistic punishment.
More technically, at The Occidental Quarterly (TOQ), the academic journal for white studies, Prof. MacDonald approaches the same subject in more abstract terms (e.g., “the free-rider problem,” “altruistic punishment,” etc.) that require previous knowledge from the reader about esoteric fields of inquiry such as evolutionary psychology among humans.
In an article published last year at TOQ MacDonald wrote:
It is noteworthy that the French Revolution had pronounced egalitarian, anti-aristocratic trends, often couched in the language of moral ingroups and outgroups in opposition to the aristocracy. For example, the moral condemnation of social hierarchy by the Jacobin radicals during the French Revolution is a major theme of Lothrop Stoddard’s The French Revolution in San Domingo. Thus Stoddard notes the hatred toward the White slave-owning colonists. During the height of the Reign of Terror, colonists sent home to France were greeted, in the words of one such unfortunate, with “a furious hatred… A hatred so intense that our most terrible misfortunes did not excite the slightest commiseration.” At the same time, mulatto and Black delegates from San Domingo were greeted with delirious applause.
Such sentiments recall the moral fervor of the Puritan-descended Yankee abolitionists in the period prior to the American Civil War. For example, for Orestes Brownson (1803–1876), a prominent publicist and activist, the Civil War was a moral crusade waged not only to preserve the union, but to emancipate the slaves. He argued “for the unity of races and the inherent dignity of each person, and he lambasted Southerners for trying to enlarge their political base” by adding to the number of slave states. Writing in 1840, Brownson claimed that we should “realize in our social arrangements and in the actual conditions of all men that equality of man and man” that God had established but which had been destroyed by capitalism. According to Brownson, Christians had to
bring down the high, and bring up the low; to break the fetters of the bound and set the captive free; to destroy all oppression, establish the reign of justice, which is the reign of equality, between man and man; to introduce new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness, wherein all shall be as brothers, loving one another, and no one possessing what another lacketh.
It’s interesting that whereas the aristocratic-egalitarian military groups emphasized by Duchesne produced cohesion and loyalty as a result of fealty to a successful leader (rather than on the basis of kinship), the East Anglian model for cohesion was the creation of moral and ideological bases of group cohesion (rather than on the basis of kinship). These two models are thus variants on the individualist theme. The Puritans famously imposed penalties on people who departed from the moral/ideological strictures of the society. They were also willing to incur great costs to impose their moral/ideological version of truth. Puritan “ordered liberty” was the freedom to act within the confines of the moral order. This might be called the paradox of individualism: In order to form cohesive groups, individualists have at times erected strong social controls on individual behavior that result in group cohesion.
The logic connecting these tendencies to the individualist hunter-gather model is obvious: Like all humans in a dangerous and difficult world, hunter-gatherers need to develop cohesive, cooperative in-groups. But rather than base them on known kinship relations, the prototypical egalitarian-individualist groups of the West are based on reputation and trust. Egalitarian-individualists create moral-ideological communities in which those who violate public trust and other manifestations of the moral order are shunned, ostracized, and exposed to public humiliation—a fate that would have resulted in evolutionary death during the harsh ecological period of the Ice Age—, the same fate as the derelict father who refused to provision his children.
A possible evolutionary legacy of this phenomenon is a greater tendency to engage in what social scientists term “altruistic punishment,” defined as punishment of people who depart from the moral-ideological consensus that costs the punisher. A cooperative culture derived from European hunter-gathers would be expected to be characterized by high levels of altruistic punishment directed at free-riders. This is studied in a game among strangers who donate to a common pot that is increased by a set multiplier by the experimenter and then divided equally. Free riders contribute little but get all the benefits. Altruistic punishers incur costs to punish the cheaters. This punishment is motivated by moral outrage. Because it is played among strangers, the game mimics individualistic societies. Whatever the political and economic complexities that led to the Civil War, it was the Yankee moral condemnation of slavery that inspired and justified the massive carnage of closely related Anglo Americans on behalf of slaves from Africa. Militarily, the war with the Confederacy was the greatest sacrifice in lives and property ever made by Americans.
The Puritans tended to pursue utopian causes framed as moral issues, not hesitating to endure high costs in order to punish those who violated the moral norms of the ingroup. They were prone to utopian appeals to a “higher law” and the belief that government’s principal purpose is moral. New England was the most fertile ground for “the perfectability of man creed,” and the “father of a dozen ‘isms’.” It goes without saying that all of the great European wars of the 20th century have been rationalized in moral terms—to secure the Enlightenment ideals of freedom, democracy, and individual rights against the state.
To conclude, my proposal is that the culture of the West as it developed in the modern era owes much more to egalitarian individualism than to aristocratic individualism. It’s interesting that all of the intellectual movements discussed in The Culture of Critique involved moral indictments of the West and its history of slavery, segregation, colonialism, anti-Semitism, exclusion of Jews from the Protestant elite. Clearly the most egregious of these moral failings stem from the cultural strand of aristocratic egalitarianism, not the egalitarian individualism that eventually won out.
Nevertheless, these movements have managed to create a moral community that taps into the hunter-gatherer ethic of egalitarian individualism. As noted above, Duchesne attributes the decline of aristocratic individualism partly to “the ethical demands of modern democratic liberalism.” However, the psychological power of the ethical demands of modern liberalism themselves require explanation. The argument here is that the roots of the creation of a moral-ideological ingroup stem from the unique egalitarian-individualist strand of the culture of the West.
The general dismantling of the culture of the West, and eventually its demise as anything resembling an ethnic entity, is occurring as a result of a moral onslaught triggering a paroxysm of altruistic punishment and based ultimately on these evolved tendencies.
MacDonald’s long piece can be read here.
sparing the Megalodon
For a pic of the Megalodon size compared
to a modern day great white shark, see: here.
(I have edited this article in September of 2017.)
I find it hilarious that Greg Johnson now believes in what my good friend Tanstaafl calls “the suicide meme” because it was Johnson himself who showed us how Christianity has also been a contributing factor in our racial eclipse.
In his latest article Johnson wrote, “The claim that white dispossession is entirely our fault is absurd… But it is more than absurd. It is repugnant.” And after a few statements he added, “Thus America is not committing suicide.”
But Johnson failed to mention who in the white nationalist movement is blaming whites a hundred percent for our predicament. On the other hand, there are some nationalists who blame the Jews a hundred percent and are unwilling to conceive that there’s something wrong going on in the white psyche.
Johnson is not among them. In his above-linked article, “Our fault?” he concedes:
But most powerless whites still share the universalistic, altruistic, anti-ethnocentric values of the whites who are actively selling us out. Many others share the cynical, selfish, individualistic, devil-take-the-hindmost values…
And he adds:
White traitors would be far fewer if their actions were viewed as evil by the majority of the white community. Thus all whites who share the values that promote white genocide also share a small [my emphasis] degree of complicity.
A small degree? I thought whites shared the largest share in Western suicide!—an ongoing suicide since the times of how they performed upon themselves a cultural self-lobotomy when a Galilean-inspired cult took over the Roman Empire, to the French Revolution that emancipated the Jews and the American Civil War that was fought on the Negro’s behalf. Johnson wrote:
Our goal as White Nationalists should be to bear no further culpability for our ongoing genocide. And the way to do that is: (1) to understand the problem to its roots, (2) to reject all the causes of our predicament, and (3) to actively work for our race’s salvation. Until you do that, you remain part of the problem.
(1) I believe that no one fully understands the problem at its roots. It is just too complex. And it looks like there are hidden monsters from the Id that have not been considered by anyone.
(2) If I am right in my claim that there are hidden psychological factors unrecognized by the larger community, it is not possible at present to consciously “reject all the causes of our predicament.”
(3) Johnson, and many white nationalists, remain part of the problem. If Johnson et al were fully aware of all the factors they would strenuously reject both degenerate music and Hollywood as part of the cultural toxicity that is killing us.
Nonetheless, unlike the monocausalists who only blame the Jews for everything, Johnson also wrote:
The liberal, democratic, capitalist system alone is conducive to white genocide, even without Jewish involvement…
The white universalism, egalitarianism, and racial altruism that sustain the system are entirely alien to Judaism. Their roots lie in Greek natural law philosophy, Christianity, and Enlightenment liberalism. These values led Americans to fight a bloody and devastating Civil War largely over black slavery long before the rise of Jewish hegemony.
As Patrick Buchanan points out in Suicide of a Superpower, the materialistic values of liberal democracy have led to declining fertility in every first world country, including Israel and Asian countries, which lack hostile Jewish elites. If you combine this system with the racial egalitarianism and altruism and non-white immigration that existed in America before Jewish hegemony, one arrives at pretty much the same system that it killing us today. In other words, the present American system could conceivably have developed along essentially the same lines, even if Jews had never set foot on our shores.
This means that if the Jews suddenly departed tomorrow, but the capitalist system and universalist, egalitarian values remained in place, our race would still be on the path to extinction. Thus we need to do more than merely separate ourselves from other races. We also need to get to the deepest roots of the problem: the moral, political, and economic weaknesses that Jews are exploiting so effectively.
So far so good. But then Johnson added that “the organized Jewish community is now committing genocide against our race” failing to mention that the organized Christian community has been even more involved in our demise, as I tried to show in my list of antichristian articles, “The Christian problem encompasses the Jewish problem,” that a blogger known as Freedom Cobra summarized in a nutshell:
Here’s a simple flow-chart. Years of research and it boils down thusly:
Christianity is founded.
—> Christianity helps to destroy Rome
—> Christianity made somewhat decent by White efforts
—> White people thrive due to their nature
—> White people take Christianity to its logical, ethnocidal conclusion
—> White Civilization Waxes
—> We perish…
Johnson’s piece blamed the shark and essentially spared the Megalodon.
After Johnson deleted my comment in a recent, gullible piece that swallows the medieval claims about blood libel (evil Jews ritually sacrificing our little kids!), I don’t want to risk another censorship in subjects that I know better than him. But I can quote a dissident voice of his most recent article:
Deinking said…
When 2% of a population controls 98% with impunity, it’s empirical proof that that the 98% is inferior. If they weren’t inferior, things would be the opposite. Blaming Jews would be understandable if they were 20-30% of our population, but when they’re just a tiny fraction and still rule over us, we have no one to blame but ourselves. If we were just one-tenth as motivated, organized, and pitiless as they are, there would be no possible way for them to dominate us. They would hardly matter at all.
We Whites have always been too naive, too gullible, too kind, and idealistic. That’s our problem. If we were hardened realists then we would have destroyed Judaism and Jewish identity thousands of years ago, when the Romans had total control over Judea. But even the Romans were too softhearted and continually let the Jews have their own society even after they viciously slaughtered Roman citizens in their various rebellions… and this was before Christian morality warped our minds. There’s something seriously wrong with us.
Greg Johnson said…
Are humans inferior to scorpions and spiders because we are vulnerable to their stings? The term “inferior” is misplaced here. We are vulnerable to Jews, just as we are vulnerable to bullets. When a man has been shot, you don’t blame him for not being bullet proof. You blame him, though, if he handed his gun over to a criminal.
Denikin said…
A human getting accidentally stung by a scorpion is one thing. But when millions of humans have been repeatedly stung by scorpions for 2,000 years and have not yet learned to stay away from them, it means there’s something wrong with the humans, not the scorpions.
Perfect logic.
A couple of recent articles and threads at Counter-Currents about Pierre Krebs’ Fighting for the Essence reminded me what we are now calling “secular Christianity”:
Tom Sunic said…
This book is important because it advises the reader about how to decipher the causes and consequences of our decadent age. Being himself a disciple of European heavyweights such as Homer, Nietzsche, and Heidegger—to name only a few—Krebs correctly traces the root of the problem of White racial decay and cultural decadence not to liberalism and multiculturalism, but to the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Above all, Krebs focuses on the destructive forms of the monotheistic Judaeo-Christian mindset which prevails among both the so-called Leftist and Right-wing intellectuals and their respective disciples. In fact, by using quotes from and commentaries concerning many important, albeit deliberately ignored European scholars, Krebs demonstrates that all political concepts that we take for granted today are basically modified ideas, myths, legends and impostures that originated in the Middle East and that are now making headway into our secular, godless society.
Krebs aptly dissects the discourse and the mindset of modern Marxists and liberals who, in spite of the fact that they often profess to be atheists or agnostics, nonetheless adhere to the monotheistic conceptualisation of the world that was handed down by the Judaeo-Christian tradition, through its secular and postmodern offshoots. In the same vein, Krebs adroitly warns against those modern political neuroses which appear quite often among many so-called Right-wingers, which causes them to rely too much on blaming all the problems of Whites on outsiders; or, in a grotesque flip side, to embrace outsiders at the expense of one’s own. Both manifestations are wrapped up in the same Judaeo-Christian package. How can a White nationalist, a racialist, or a traditionalist, or whatever he may call himself, and regardless of whether he lives in Europe or America, successfully combat hostile and alien worldviews and adopt different methods of conceptualisation, while at the same time revering these same alien referents and the same paradigms which are, ironically, part and parcel of the same non-European mindset he wishes to reject?
The matrix of the West, as Krebs argues, is no longer territorial or political. It lies in the White man’s experiment with Christianity, which began as merely an obscure Oriental cult—a cult which has absolutely nothing in common with the spiritual homeland of the White man: ancient Greece.
The answer Krebs offers to intelligent White readers in America and Europe who are seeking an exit from the modern multicultural straitjacket and the conceptual mendacity of liberalism is simple, although it will require a great deal of courage: the return to our lost pre-Christian European roots. Novus rerum nascitur ordo.
Roger Devlin said…
But Krebs names the heresiarch Pelagius as one of his heroes. In his view, the egalitarian lie is to be blamed not on any perversion of Christianity, but on Christianity itself—or, as he invariably writes, “Judeochristianity.” He cites Nietzsche’s observation that
Christianity, which has sprung from Jewish roots and can only be understood as a plant that has come from that soil, represents the counter-movement to every morality of breeding, race or privilege—it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence.
From this Krebs infers that
every discourse which calls for a European Renaissance without separating itself from Judeo-Christian civilization, its dogmas and its rituals, is condemned to failure in advance, since it is enclosed within the very matrix of decline.
It is a familiar observation that enlightenment thought amounts to a secularized version of Christian doctrine, a displacement of its eschatology into the realm of politics. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn is just one example of a Christian conservative who stressed this connection, citing the Latin proverb corruptio optimi pessima: “the corruption of the best is the worst.”
But Krebs the admirer of Pelagius cannot mean this; his explicit positions would force him to deny that the secularization of Christianity is the essential misstep. Instead he must hold that (1) Christianity itself is responsible for the specific way in which it was negated by the Enlightenment, and that (2) Europe has been in a state of decadence since at least the fourth century AD. This bold interpretation of European history may deserve consideration, but the author has hardly made a case for it in the brief manifesto under review.
Greg Johnson said…
In response to Devlin’s remarks, yes, Krebs is committed to the claims that (1) Christianity is responsible for the trajectory of its secularization, and (2) that Western Civilization has been ruled by decadent values since the fourth century, when the Christianization of the Roman Empire received state power from Constantine. Both of these claims are defensible in Nietzschean terms, and Nietzsche is Krebs’ prime source here.
(1) Christianity is responsible for the trajectory of its secularization, because secular liberalism represents a triumph of Christian values over Christianity itself. Nietzsche argues that the Christian valorization of truth as something worth dying for was turned against the supernatural, faith-based elements of the creed. And once the supernatural, “pie in the sky” elements of Christianity are discarded, then nothing stands in the way of the progressive/utopian realization of Christian values in this world, values like the worth of every human life.
(2) These values were dominant in the West beginning with Constantine, but they were never really taken all that seriously. Spengler is right: the values of the New Testament are the Bolshevism of antiquity, and Christianity was as devastating to ancient pagan civilization as the Bolshevism of the 20th century. But once in power, the church readily compromised with pre-Christian values and social forms because of its essentially otherworldly focus. And they condemned as heretics those who demanded that the Church live by the values of the gospels. When the Reformation triumphed, however, and Christians started actually reading the Bible and thinking of ways to live by it in this world, the corrosive power of Christian values became fully liberated to do their work.
Kim Petrusson said…
Quite evidently it is since Europe was quite fine under traditional Christianity, but have crushed down under the gnostic modernity.
Greg Johnson said…
What you dub “gnostic modernity” is merely Christian axioms being taken to their logical real-world conclusions. And “gnostic modernity” is a rather marginal phenomenon considered alongside the modernizing thrust of the Reformation. What you point to as the heyday of European Christianity was merely, from a Christian point of view, the hypocritical compromise of the church with pre-Christian sensibilities and social forms. When the Reformation actually got Christians reading the Bible and trying to take it seriously, decay really got underway.
Johnnie Appleseeds said…
Greg, I think we need a strong philosophical refutation of Xtianity that is not perceived as vitriolically and mean-spirited as that of Nietzsche. I agree with Nietzsche, but his language turns people off.
Greg Johnson said…
Maybe you are right, but if Nietzsche is right, there is no pretty way to describe the ugly psychological processes that gave birth to and sustain slave morality.
A recent article about a psychiatric pill in the United Kingdom that “cures racism” elicited some lively comments at The Occidental Observer of which I’ll only reproduce a few:
Fender said…
“Why am I not surprised to see that such a ‘study’ should come out of England?” (Jarvis Dingle-Daden)
The Anglos are natural schemers and utopians, just like the tribe [the Jews]. That’s why they’ve been natural allies for the past four centuries. Along with the tribe, they feel they have a right to “improve” and rule over the world.
This is why I’m starting to believe that the Anglos, and to a lesser extent, the Western Europeans, need to be miscegenated out of existence by the lower races. They’re a downright dangerous race of people—basically the vicious bulldogs of the tribe, attacking anyone who stands up to them.
The Northern and Western European nations are hotbeds of Marxism, “antiracism,” and utopian thought. They’re a threat to Central and Eastern Europe, where many people have been immunized against Judaic nonsense due to their past histories with communism. We never, ever see studies like this [the search of an anti-racist psychiatric drug] coming from Russia, the Czech republic, Ukraine, etc. Estonia recently honored its SS heroes and its government actually prevented the dumb antifa from interfering. Tens of thousands of proud nationalists openly march the streets of Russia and Ukraine. The governments of Belarus and Hungary are explicitly pro-White. These are the governments and nations that the Anglo-Jewish power establishment wants to destroy.
This may offend some, but if the European races hope to survive, its most infected limbs need to be amputated. In my mind, this means the Anglos and Nordics. Both tribes are fiercely Marxist, universalist, and suicidal, and they cannot be allowed to take the rest of Europe down with them.
Bobby said…
Fender, I agree with you completely on the views you hold of the groups you mentioned. I have had a theory about this for quite a while now. Let me try it out on you.
After the disaster for Europe called World War II, most Europeans were devastated in a way that Americans cannot even imagine. War, or any aggression at all, became anathema to them. They became sick and tired of any conflict. So they decided to throw themselves fully into materialism. The factories of Europe started going and because of the Soviet and American distrust of each other a mere two to three years after the war, the U.S. quickly lost any “moralistic” ideas of punishing Germany any longer. Instead some money was pumped into Europe not out of any altruism, but for the practical purpose of helping to defend America’s interests.
So Western Europe experienced a boom in prosperity that it had never known in modern times. You could see this by the increase in car ownership, and the general state of better living. In fact, the German Chancellor Ludwig Erhard, a trained economist, announced that concentrating on economics would be Germany’s salvation. All kinds of frivolous activities were engaged in and it continues. What I’m saying is that Western Europeans, unlike their poor and caged-in relatives in the East, became lazy, supermaterialistic, and confused.
The confusion was the result of the widespread leftist egalitarian teachings in almost every single university in Western Europe. And of course, along with this teaching went the usual guilt-trip that whites were the problem and need to repent and change the world, etc. The Western Eurocrats got away with pushing this stuff, because the economies of Europe were good and no one saw a reason to complain.
So, even though things are rapidly changing in Western Europe, due to economics and the left’s successes in preaching egalitarianism, [what] this sixty-plus year brainwashing and shangrilla Western Europe experienced is still the model in the minds of most Western Europeans, even though the paradigm is changing.
Things are most dangerous when an accepted paradigm no longer has relevance and a new one is about to emerge.
Hasbara Matata said…
Slavic superiority. Right.
The root of the problem with all Whites in this regard—being “liberal” [means] suicide—is Christianity. Like Marxism, which is Christianity’s twin that was born second, Christianity is proxy-Judaism; it makes us self-destructive, since we’ve internalized universalist kosher hokum along with a Jew as the savior and creator of the universe. Unfortunately, after 2000 years of Whites soaking their brains with Jewish myths, there are very few who are psychologically capable of accepting it.
It’s a lesson that even Kevin MacDonald himself needs to learn.
Fender said…
Apartheid was constructed because the WASPs thought that, deep down, blacks are just like them. Same thing with Manifest Destiny and colonialism: these never happened due to racial supremacism, but because WASPs thought savages can be civilized. Now the WASPs think White racialists are the savages, and that they too can be civilized, in their “altruism” they’re going to murder and oppress any Whites in their attempt to improve and civilize the world.
I’ll grant you that Slavs have a grin-and-bear-it mentality, but let’s not forget that the Jews needed to mass murder millions in the East to gain power while they took over the West without firing a shot.
Vened said…
Fender: I have an acquaintance. She and her parents were born in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe). They left Rhodesia long time ago for obvious reasons. She still thinks that giving up that land to blacks was the right thing to do. She is of English descent. I see exactly the same Anglo mindset in the United States of America.
As an Eastern Slav, my blood boils watching Anglos abandoning North America…
For the first part click here. Indented paragraphs are quotations of those commenters to whom Linder responds.
The Weimar Germans just came out of a nationalistic world, were proud to be German and had a 1000-year-old history. Americans have to deal with 60 years of mass egalitarian / multicult indoctrination. The first task is to build up race consciousness among Whites.
Without tv it’s a losing battle, given demographics. We’re doing what we can on the ’net, but it’s not enough and can never be. The need is to get power, then you can take care of the rest in short order. It’s like if someone is pouring water on you, you’re advising people to dry off instead of taking the hose away from the guy.
The contexts of America today and the Weimar Germany couldn’t be more different; it’s moronic to treat Mein Kampf like some sort of roadmap to American problems.
Nope, sorry Fred. It’s a power struggle, plain and simple. There’s got to be a team. It’s got to be White. It’s got to focus on the jew. Otherwise, nothing.
Posted by Lew:
Alex Linder: [Southerners] simply aren’t smart or quick enough to do battle with jews. Indeed, it is the hardest thing in the world to teach a Southerner basic facts about anything.
Hey, Deep Southerner here. I resemble that remark about dull Southerners. Keep in mind David Duke is a Southerner.
I happened to see the Duke campaign up close and worked for Duke as a low-level volunteer. White people in Louisiana turned out in droves for Duke.
In the early 1990s Jews did indeed unleash all of their power on Duke short of assassination, which might have been their next move had he won.
But it was local business interests backed by the organized Louisiana Bar and the Chamber of Commerce that were decisive in defeating Duke, not Jews and their media. A lot of Whites who didn’t give a shit about the media were told by their White bosses that if they voted for Duke, they would lose their jobs. In the end, it scared off enough people to make the difference. Duke later called that tactic economic blackmail.
Posted by Linder:
Hey, Deep Southerner here. I resemble that remark about dull Southerners. Keep in mind David Duke is a Southerner.
I generalize and overstate. Verbal caricature is a very good way to see what’s right or wrong about a proposition. I’m no footnoter. I’ll never go back and issue disclaimers—you know how to read it, you’re smart. You can read the motive. I don’t care about anybody’s feelings, including my own. We’re too womanly on that stuff. Politics aint beanbag.
Notice I don’t unload on Duke, and that is because he meets my litmus test: openly pro-White, openly anti-jew. He has truly shown the limits of the controlled electoral process, so he deserves respect.
But it was local business interests backed by the organized Louisiana Bar and the Chamber of Commerce that were decisive in defeating Duke, not Jews and their media.
You, we, must have principles to get anywhere. And the very first principle, in any pro-White organization, must be VNN’s slogan: No Jews. Just Right. They must be completely excluded. That I have to state this boggles the mind. That I have to tell MacDonald this blows the mind.
The CMS, NPI, AP3, alt-right continuum are pitch perfect for attracting disaffected people (in my opinion) away from the American mainstream and toward racial nationalism.
Not so. As I’ve pointed out, conservatism, functionally, has nothing to do with politics; that’s just the field in which it is deployed to raise money.
However, these entities appear to be tangled up with Jews at the highest levels.
Correct. They’re unprincipled, or they have the wrong principles. They will reap the predictable result.
Interesting how these liars come out of the woodwork to exculpate jews. MacDonald says that jews alone were responsible for the 1965 immigration act. Before that change, America was 90% white.
Corporations had nothing to do with opening the borders, and these woodwork liars know it. But their mission is to confuse. To make complex what real political thinkers like Hitler knew must be made simple enough that the lowest person in the crowd could understand. Politics is not about intellectuals, it’s about basic propaganda as a means to a group-desirable end.
It is all-important that average white men be taught that jews are responsible for every major social problem in the west. Of course that is a simplification. But it is essentially true and politically the sine qua non of any kind of substantial racial regenerative effort. The truth remains that jews are behind all upheaval movements in the West dating back at least to the French Revolution.
Chechar’s interpolated note: I’d need a source for the French Revolution claim.
Just as Churchill wrote as a journalist about communists back in 1919, jews were the driving power. Investigate whichever radical movement you like and you’ll find the same thing.
Only one policy cures jews and the trouble they cause: No jews. Just right.
* * *
And the maestro [Goebbels] expounds:
“The battle against indifference is the hardest battle. There may be two million people in this city who hate my guts, who persecute and slander me, but I know that I can win over some of them. We know that from experience. Some of those who persecuted us and fought most bitterly against us are today our most determined supporters. You see that the important thing for propaganda is that it reach its goal, and that it is a mistake to apply critical standards that are irrelevant.”
Does the average man know the white racial cause exists? He does not. He knows white racialism is something to beat up Republicans about.
We must make a party. And we must make a name for that party. The way to do that is clear, and I’ve laid it out in my strategy piece.
* * *
My country is called America. My ancestors came over on the Mayflower. My ancestors fought with Ethan Allen in Vermont, and George Washington to establish it. Their offspring did all they could to keep the filthy niggers you 90-IQ crackers imported to do the work you were too lazy to do yourselves, and so you could have someone around dumb enough you could plausibly look down on them.
Who are the #1 political winners of this day and age? The jews. Who are the most paranoid, obnoxious and disagreeable people on earth, hands down? The jews. But I’m sure we’ll lay them low with our big grins, friendly handshakes and genial online logrolling.
In light of jews’ success, we can conclude that paranoia, obnoxiousness and disagreeability in no way impede political success and may well be essential to it. My view is that all serious politicians must either be paranoid or synthesize the ability to think like one. Paranoia is nothing more than highly tuned, or overtuned, enemy recognition. The problem whites have as a race is they aren’t naturally paranoid. They are not naturally xenophobic by comparison with all other racial groups. They can’t even get a feel for their enemies after it is pointed out exactly what their enemies are doing. Whereas jews seem to have feelers, so in-the-blood is their hateful suspicion of all others.
In real politics, paranoia, real or acquired, is essential to success. Stalin was paranoid. Jews are a paranoid race. As I’ve said many times, shrewd people see 90% of what’s there. Paranoids see 110%. The non-paranoids in a movement can use the paranoids to pick up that last little bit they don’t catch themselves.
I can’t avoid the conclusion that most WNs [white nationalists] simply don’t believe their own bullshit, when it comes to jews.
* * *
You don’t like me or what I say when I attack Jared Taylor. Because you like him personally.
But objectively, allowing jews and apologists into our movement will render it stillborn.
How do I know it’s objective? Because the exact same thing just happened to professional conservatism in the 1960-1990 frame. Today professional conservatism celebrates commie rapist MLK [Martin Luther King] as a hero. In 1960, professional conservatism wrote about him publicly in nationally distributed publications pretty much the way we racialists do today.
You let someone like Jared Taylor into the White movement, you are guaranteeing that in twenty years, so-called White Nationalists will be saying the same things about MLK that Newt Gingrich and Glenn Beck say today.
The odd irony is that you who respect Taylor actually have less respect for him than I do. The reason for that is that you don’t understand him or the danger he presents and represents.
Ferris Bueller (something like that): “So—how do you put this into practice, apart from talking to yourself and a handful of misfits on the internet? That’s the question, and I bet you have no answer.”
Are you people on drugs? Have I not on this very thread given the basic strategy, or at least link to it? It’s not hard to do theoretically, it’s easy. It’s hard to do practically because the men to do it aren’t there. How to get them? That’s the question. It has to start with military vets at this point. And a nucleus that can data-protect itself to a level equal to the FBI-ADL. On the soft side, white curriculum, white “hilfe” stuff like Parrott talks about. I could repeat what I’ve said hundreds of times, but you’re not really listening anyway, or you’d know my basic strategy.
Haller: Why not use your talents in a more persuasive way than spending a decade of hurling abuse around the internet? I don’t know how you support yourself, but you obviously have free time. Why not use that free time to gain some real, objective academic expertise in the field of Jewish Studies? Even if you didn’t wish to return to grad school, as I’ve now done with Catholic Theology (and that PC world probably would not accept you), why not subject yourself to a disciplined course of study in Jewish political involvements (as Kmac did), and then write a book on your political strategy re dealing with Jewry and allied issues?
An academic understanding of jews and a political movement to oppose them have nothing to do with each other. Anyone new to the idea that jews are a collective bad rather than good can verify the claim in no more than a night or two of reading. Knowing more than that about jews is nice but not necessary—from the strategic political standpoint. It is the work of the enemy to make it seem as though our cause is more complex than White-good / jew-bad. It’s not.
And advanced academic degrees are no proof against political unwisdom. Look how unthinkingly MacDonald participates in and validates by his presence the Charles Martel Society, which admits… jew-apologists. MacDonald by his actions confuses followers about whether jews are the problem or part of the solution. He confuses us with them in the eyes of onlookers, thereby vitiating a racial cause. “Each man kills the thing he loves,” wrote Wilde.
This world is set up so that it is as easy to produce the opposite of our intention as what we intended. Extremely careful attention must be paid.
Leon, I don’t think you’re capable of grasping certain things. It’s imagination and emotion that move the world, not footnotes and studies. You think that an academic has more credibility than an effective wit. It is not so. It is the opposite. Sometimes the two are united in one man, as in Goebbels; more frequently they are separated. Hitler achieved his deeper-than-MacDonald understanding of judaism not in college libraries but on the streets of Vienna.
The way to a man’s heart is through his marrow, not his mind.
If the book were sober, factual and free of invective,
it would be boring as all fuck and mere repetition of what 100 more academically inclined writers have said before.
Don’t you see, Haller? You’d have me throw away my real skills to become a third-rate repeater—repeater of a message better men have already laid before us a dozen times. “Sober, factual and free of invective” are the opposite of what produces political change.
You really are almost a caricature of the bourgeois mind. I almost would suspect you of satire but not quite.
Leon—have you never read George Lincoln Rockwell? He has your type nailed. Go read on him on his political progress through conservatism. Absolutely nails what’s going on. He skewers your POV [point of view] and the type that holds it. Again, it’s the MacDonald mindset too. That we are going to outrespectable the yid-led left to victory. Outmanners them. Outnice them. This view is not merely crazy, it is probably unique in world history: that an oppressed minority that accurately perceived its opponent as mendacious-aggressive nevertheless believed it could triumph over that vile criminal set with nothing more than facts and reason.
As Rockwell said, the delusion that the masses can be moved by facts and reason is the eternal stumbling block of the right. You, in telling me to become a shitty academic, would have me throw away precisely what it is that I have that potentially could cause the jews serious problems—invective, verhetzing as they call it in deutsch. I know how to get in people’s marrow, and that’s knowledge you can’t learn in any school. Go back to school? Other than weedeat mosquito-filled swales, there is nothing I would less rather do than go back to where the snakey-snidelys snit and snoot at the non-semitophilic.
Doing what you’ve been doing seems like a waste, merely talking to other talkers.
It does not seem so to me.
I think progress has been made in the last decade. More men understand the jewish root of our problem; more sites expound on it. I’m happy to continue widening the circle.
Alex, Jared Taylor has been doing his thing for over 20 years—and nobody’s burning incense for MLK. It didn’t happen.
Of course it hasn’t happened—yet. It’s a long play by the jews. They have pre-infiltrated WN so that if WN takes off (and jews know it well could, because they know what they are doing to our race, and how a section of that race must inevitably respond), then they have long in place extremely skillful, appealing men to mislead the angry mobs, and channel their anger in a non-jew-hostile direction. This is the purpose Jared Taylor exists to serve. William F. Buckley served it before him, and Taylor has said he wants to be the WFB of white nationalism.
It’s not what WN is today that worries the jew—all the reports put out seemingly monthly are pure bullshit—it’s what it could be if it ever takes off.
Alex, none of these people would find you tolerable in the least. You think P.J. O’Rourke, who was married to Lena Horne’s granddaughter, would want to have lunch with you?
Funny for a number of reasons.
1) such a womanly way of thinking: ooh, mrs dallypimple wont have snickers with me at forenoon.
Honest to god, get off the net and go buy maxipads, girlie. I care about effects and how they’re produced, not whether these people would go to McDonald’s with me.
2) How the hell do you possibly know how dead people in different nations would react? What’d you convene a quickie séance and poll them? I love how people just grant themselves all-knowledge of things no one could know.
Why do so few of you study the Civil Rights Movement’s history, and learn from its methods?
Because they only work if you control the mass media.
The suggestion of this false model usually signals the voicer is an anti.
The whole notion of duplicating the black-privilege movement is so ridiculous on the face of it that I assume the person advocating such is either a blockhead or an anti.
Claims that we can and should copy the ’60s jew-organized niggers, regardless of the intent of the advocate, play into the jewish lie that it was the “morality” of the anti-White movement that won whites over rather than raw jewish legal and media power.
Good example is Knoxville. The media treated us Whites sticking up for Christian and Newsom as hostile outsiders bent on stirring up trouble. Trolls on here repeat that lie. But when the jew-fired radicals went down to the southern region in the sixties, they were treated as jesus figures come to the benighted land to spread love and justice. The locals were the haters.
What’s the common denominator? Anyone sticking up for whites is the bad guy, and anyone pushing the jew agenda is the good guy.
The “civil-rights” strategy can’t work unless your side has the courts protecting it and the mass media marketing for it. Only simpletons and antis masquerading as WN can’t understand this. The more I read Haller, the more his denseness seems deliberate.
Haller: Heretical as this will sound to Linder, I’m not convinced that Jews can’t be brought to a new, more constructive relationship with Aryans.
How do you propose to bring them, lacking any power? They’ll laugh at you. They don’t care about reason or morals, only power. And you don’t have any. That’s why all this talk of secession or separatism or forming Republics is ridiculous. Rather than empty, foolish talk about secession, Republics, separatism and the like, we must worry about much more basic things: a) defining who we mean by “we”; b) defining who we mean by the enemy, them; c) forming a national political vehicle; d) choosing a strategy to acquire power; e) employing the strategy and actually acquiring that power. Then and only then can we force the jews to deal with us, or die resisting.
The people are already with us. What does that mean? It means if “we” that great undefined are anywhere near equal in power in relation to ZOG’s official parties, or even merely appear to be heading toward it, the people will side with us because we represent what their actual behavior shows they already appear: closed borders, free association, execution of nigger criminals, gun right, end to foreign wars/aid.
Our strategy cannot be based on appealing to people or teaching them because we don’t control the high points. It’s like a guy with a single used car trying to outsell some massive car lot. We have to assume the people are with us based on their deepest behavior—where they move, who they marry. And assume they are not heroes, and will not take serious risks short of emergency conditions (massive social breakdown), but will follow the forces of white normalcy we represent if the social costs of that following are anywhere near equal.
Linder’s model—an anti-localist national approach…
My approach is not anti-local at all; local is quite important. My strategy correctly recognizes that the power suppressing our racial interests emanates from D.C., not from some hamlet in rural Wyoming, Arkansas or South Carolina. It’s like some of you aren’t capable of reading the papers. We must persuade people! We must do things in Our Town and never lift our heads! And what happens? You do anything serious, the feds coming marching in with the civil rights tyrants and jail you, sue you, or abuse you in the press. You can’t even run classified ads discussion who you want to rent a room to, because that’s a federal civil rights violation. There’s no way to change that locally, it’s a national issue. There has to be a competing, oppositional national body facing up to the jews in order to take that power back from them. Local stuff is important for other reasons, only secondarily for political reasons. Most white-majority areas don’t have any serious political problem, and if they do, say black crime or illegal-alien-caused problems, it’s precisely because the feds won’t let them deal with them. Who sues the small town in Pennsylvania that passes some tiny measure to discourage illegal aliens? The Justice Department. Not out of Feral Hogg, Ala., but out of Washington, D.C. Again, I can’t help but see deliberate denseness here on the part of these anonymous mouthers.
We need power. Power means national power. There’s no such thing as state and local power in the USA in 2011. Not when a federal judge can simply toss out the legitimate vote of a large democratic majority. And the media always side with the judge.
The only portion of KMD’s A3P discussion that was a big disappointment to me was this: he mentioned an internal debate about whether the A3P should be an explicitly or implicitly White vehicle.
Imagine Hitler and the National Socialists internally debating whether they should be explicitly pro-Germany or implicitly? A kosher-salted garden slug would be a good symbol for A3P.
If this is true and there is actually disagreement within the A3P on this basic question, it does not seem likely the national A3P plans to do what I have been hoping for — making confrontation Jews in a rational, founded and reasonable way using KMD’s own research and findings part of their activism.
There’s nothing wrong with rational criticism of jews, but it belongs underneath the gaudy flowers of vicious emotional attacks for the harm they’ve done our race. That KMD et al. don’t get this is why they aren’t worth following. Emotion is where the winning lies, not in reason. In the heart, not the head.
It is an infallible mark of the fool or the liar that the jewish “thing” can’t be understood by normal people without years of training, prayers and handholding. Garbage. Any person of normal intelligence and most people of subnormal intelligence can be taught the jew thing in a couple of minutes.
The correct strategy is to attack the conservatives as cowards and weaklings, which they are. Take on their standard-bearer directly, the worst of them all: Pat Buchanan.
Chechar’s interpolated note: A recent TOO article deals with Buchanan’s most “valiant” book (here), which will be published next month. According to the reviewer, Buchanan doesn’t mention the Jewish Question.
* * *
Somehow the jews took power without ever troubling themselves in the slightest with Flyover. Hmm… now how did they do that? Oh. They bought up the mass media, they paid off the politicians, and they took over the law schools. But we’ll get ‘em back by…running candidates in local dogcatcher elections. Yeah, thatz the ticket!
Wandrin: “Jewish media and legal power specifically played on White concepts of universal morality. It didn’t work on everybody, especially not those with a lot of personal experience of living among blacks, but it worked on enough White people to tip the balance. Films like To Kill A Mockingbird and all the others like it were enough on their own to start the multicult in places like Sweden.”
Yeah, but that’s a deeper problem—christ-insanity. And still you’re evading and failing to counter my point. Morality is not some independent abstract thing that is undeniable, in many instances, if not all, it’s a matter of interpretation.
Are they civil rights workers? Or jew-led, jew-instigated anti-White troublemakers pursuing a genocidal agenda?
You see how easy that is? It is purely a function of who controls the media, who gets to define who is who. They simply map on their political concerns to existing mores and, yes, as you say, they fit them to christian morality. Child’s play to cunning kikes.
We can’t simply copy what the jew-led nigs did because our cause will not be played the same way in the media. We will be played as the bad guys. The evil outside shit-stirrers. I’m not theorizing, the framers interviewing people in Knoxville were taking great pains to ask about where everybody was from so they could make precisely that point: “outsiders bringing trouble.”
Media control is damn near everything. What part of that is too hard to figure out?
You can’t reverse engineer it without controlling the institutions. To succeed at cultural marxism requires a verbal ability our side doesn’t possess. Look at how many of us use the enemies’ terms unthinkingly. MacDonald uses “racism” and “Holocaust” and “anti-semitism” like they’re meaningful words representing perfectly valid concepts, rather than attacks on the cause he thinks he is defending. If our smartest guys are clueless, are the dumber ones any better?
Look… a hostile minority took over this country. It did not do it by voting. It did it by legally and sometimes illegally acquiring the mass media, and simultaneously taking over the money. It uses its immense and growing power to create a false reality, a false consensus reality, as has been well said. No “hey kids, let’s put on a show” counter effort is going to defeat that. A lot of you don’t seem to grasp that. The only possible thing that can defeat that is extremely organized, life-and-death loyal opposition. And 90% of you don’t even agree on the necessity of keeping to a political. Some of you, pretending to be us, actually brag about being stupid, indoctrinaire, contradictory. Let me tell, my pudgy little friends. The jewish cunt will not fucked with that tiny pecker.
* * *
By all means, people are free to waste another 100 years speaking in their indoor voice, raising their niggling finger, and prefacing everything they say with disclaimers. But if you want change, you have to create a national angry groundswell willing to slur and kill and sup on the blood of its enemies, and you don’t get there by appealing to selfish bourgeois cowards.
Anger is good for our cause. Reason is merely necessary.
Teaching people about jews in the bloodless, carefully emotionally controlled academic prose is fine for a book, but not for practical politics. To make CofC’s lessons real, vibrant, meaningful and effective requires someone doing more or less exactly what I said. Only emotion will get us where we need to go. Reason shows the way and the how, but emotion is the means.
Wandrin: “The essence of cultural marxism is simply relentless attack on every critical aspect of the dominant culture until it collapses from exhaustion at which point you can replace it with something else.”
Yeah, but you can’t do that without controlling the high points: the pulpit, the press, the law schools, the academies. Especially not if what you’re preaching is hugely and ridiculously anti-majority.
They required great verbal ability because they were selling poison. We don’t need as much because the multicult is one big genocidal double standard and we’re selling the cure.
Yes, that’s true, to an extent. But still the basic problem remains: unless you own the mass media, you’re shouting in the wind. And the jews operating our power institutions are not going to allow themselves to be displaced or infiltrated. Their control mechanism is extremely strong, and their threat-paranoia is impeccable. I really believe that it’s late enough in the day that only a counterforce that begins with soldiers has any serious chance. Or we can’t wait until ZOG collapses of its own internal contradictions, as a marxist would say. But I actually believe if we had even a few hundred, say, veterans, and they stuck to a defined political line and pursued a solid strategy they could become a national force in short order.
Remember the mantra: smart people always undersimplify. Let’s not make that mistake.
Our people need know only that jews are bad and Whites are good. Everything the majority of our people hates we peg to the jews, and quite justifiably so. Everything they love we tie to the existence of a racial-oriented state.
Simple, simple, simple. Emotional, emotional, emotional. Repetitive, repetitive, repetitive.
We don’t control the mass media. That is the most important political fact we face. Like birds in a north wind or salmon headed to spawn, we must face that north wind, that cascading water, directly. Directly is the only way to cut or knife through it and get where we need to go. Three quarters wont do it: 3/4 gets blown over bowled over, sucked under.
Just say no to cleverness!
Attacking the double standards and moral inconsistencies of the multicult will reduce its power over the audience you’re addressing.
No. It will not. The leftists already know about the double standards and don’t care. They like seeing white males punished, and love o hear them whining about it.
If complaining about double standards and unfairness did something we wouldn’t be in this mess because that’s all conservatives have ever done. It never has worked and never will work. We’re not in a debate. We’re in a monopoly harangue where we have no loudspeaker and our opponent has 1000. The question is how do you do something about it. For that the conservative has no answer. He just keeps appealing to the very power that created the unfairness in the first place. How crazy is that? Like the judeo-left doesn’t know what it’s doing, intend it, and enjoy it? You have to be insane to be a conservative. It’s simply a way to avoid fighting. It’s a euphemism of a political position: we just mass-aggree to operate on the delusion that our enemies are rational and fair-minded folk, even tho a child of 2 could see they’re wicked liars. We don’t need more conservatism, we need a party for serious adults.
Posted by Trainspotter:
Linder: “They don’t care about reason or morals, only power. And you don’t have any. That’s why all this talk of secession or separatism or forming Republics is ridiculous.”
Any more ridiculous than speaking of world conquest during an era in which we are not allowed so much as a racially exclusive donut shop?
We’ve now got well over 100 million non-whites in this country. We have an enemy entrenched in all the high points of cultural and political power. The Jews were able to simply buy up these levers of power, or pursue the long march through the institutions. We are allowed neither of these options; the doors are closed. There will be no long march for us.
So we can’t replicate what the Jews did. We also can’t replicate what the NS did in the twenties and thirties. For all the talk of Weimar decadence and Cabaret style indulgence, Germany was still a fundamentally sound society, at least in the sense that it was 98 to 99 percent white and the broader culture leagues above what we currently endure. They faced a small and rotten alien elite combined with a relative handful of German lickspittles. Smash that small and alien elite (we’re talking a total population of just a few hundred thousand), and you pretty much had a healthy nation again.
That’s a long way from where we find ourselves today.
While we can take lessons from successful movements of the past (both pro and anti-white), we in many respects are in uncharted waters. We’ve got to figure it out ourselves, because no one has or will do it for us.
At the end of the day, I think most serious thinkers agree that there is no peaceful way out of this situation, at least on this continent. That is mere foretelling, not advocacy.
Given that situation, the question then becomes how exactly do you motivate enough people to take enough action to gain…enough? Who the hell is signing up for world conquest when we can’t even control a truck stop? At this point, who is signing up even for removing 100 million non-whites from the North American continent? Who is signing up for the polarization strategy, when the end game is… what exactly?
We’ve got to come up with something that is at least remotely viable. The idea of the White Republic is an attempt in that direction. If we can turn this into an idea that has legs, that gets some traction, you’ll soon enough get all the polarization that you like.
We can critique, deconstruct, and mock our opponents (however they are defined), but unless there is an end result that a lot of people can sign off on and get passionate about, it’s just not going anywhere.
And while it falls somewhat short of “world conquest,” a decisive result on the North American continent would be of immense benefit to our kindred peoples in Europe and across the globe. Some form of secession may well be the answer, and at least has the potential to serve as a galvanizing point. Most people won’t fight, or even take risks, over mere vagaries or seemingly impossible scenarios (religious nuts being an arguable exception here). But if you’ve got something that they can wrap their minds around, then you’re either fer it or agin’ it. That’s your polarization right there, all the polarization that you’ll ever need. It will be obvious, and it will matter.
In other words, and for all its faults, our movement has done a pretty damn good job in terms of critique, but it has done very little to offer a tangible way out of our predicament that seems even remotely viable. When people see no way out, can they be blamed for simply keeping their heads low and muddling along as best they can? Going along to get along? Can they be blamed for enjoying Buchanan who, giving credit where it is due, is both a good and informative writer? What’s the harm when there is no solution anyway? “Hey, I don’t know where this is going. Maybe Buchanan does!”
You speak of polarization, but my argument is that will take care of itself when we solve a more fundamental problem: how to galvanize. There is plenty of physical courage left in our people. Huge numbers are willing to risk life and limb for their country. Hell, the empire can still get an awful lot of people to go off and die in third world shitholes. Our challenge is to develop and spread a vision that people will actually be willing to fight for. We haven’t done that, and until we do, polarization isn’t going but so far.
When nothing is worth fighting for, we can either be sewing circle faggots and engage in silly internet drama on the one hand, or we can be gentlemen and agree to disagree on the other hand… but so what? To what end? Until we have a meaningful focal point that really has some traction, it doesn’t matter much one way or the other, at least in the minds of most.
Posted by Linder:
Trainspotter: “You speak of polarization, but my argument is that will take care of itself when we solve a more fundamental problem: how to galvanize.”
Polarization is a political strategy… for a group with a purpose. We have to start by organizing in our own name—on a racial basis. That’s what we don’t have now. For crissake, even MacDonald’s vehicle can’t decide whether it’s openly white or not. The political point any sane White party would recognize is whites have no interest in political association with jews or the muds… Therefore they organize on the basis of race. Not region. Not religion.
Greg Johnson: “My main problem with you is that you make shit up. You pass off hypotheses and likely stories as truth, e.g., your claims about the motives of people you do not like, i.e., that certain people are sellouts for money and social status, that Jared Taylor is running a false opposition for the Jews.”
Whether AmRen was set up that way, became that way at a point, or has been entirely under Taylor’s control the whole time, it has in fact served in exactly the same capacity as John Birch Society, a front group known to false opposition formally controlled by the jews paying Welch’s salary (claimed by Revilo Oliver). AmRen encourages harsh criticism of muslims and blacks, but forbids any criticism of jews and Israel. That is, Taylor is deliberately encouraging whites to blame themselves.
And when I claim that no, that is not what Taylor is up to, you falsely claim that I am motivated by personal considerations rather than impersonal principles. For you, “impersonal principle” seems to mean, in part, making judgments about persons without any actual knowledge of them, which just boils down to you brazenly passing off speculation as facts up and waving away inconvenient criticism as sloppy and unprincipled.
Apparently my point is too subtle for your to grasp. I don’t need to know anything about Taylor other than the positions he takes. His positions are illogical and contradictory. For example, he says jews are whites. And whites should blame themselves. But you [can’t] blame jewish whites at AmRen. He further says he doesn’t take position on the jewish question, but much of his editorial space is taking up with muslim-bashing. Yet, as I said, he will not allow any criticism of jews. When it comes to race, he’s against open border, but he’s also against printing the fact that jews alone drove the 1965 immigration act that opened them. When it comes to solutions, he demands the restoring of free association, but never mentions it was organized jewry that destroyed that civil right in the name of civil rights.
Boy, he’s a bait can full of slippery contradictions to anyone with a working mind. Greg Johnson’s mind usually works pretty well. It goes on tilt when it comes to Taylor. What could account for that? It is reasonable to suspect that personal affection accounts for it. Particularly when in this very bit Johnson says I can’t judge Taylor because I don’t him personally. But you don’t need to know someone personally to judge them when you have their contradictory words in front of you, alongside their proven record over time.
At present, our movement is confined to the internet and our only real strength is our credibility, which we have to preserve carefully, especially since we are already so heavily handicapped by trolls, whether calculating or merely psychotic, and webmasters who give them free reign.
I agree. That’s why intelligent men should not let a fraud try to get away with claiming he separates the jewish question from the nigger question, which is as ridiculous as separating the dancing monkey with the cup from the organ grinder.
Okay, but more to Trainspotter’s central plaint, How to galvanize the White masses? Take over tv and broadcast non-stop “Knoxville Burnings.”
According to your tastes…
It isn’t my tastes but my perception of fact. I could be wrong, but it’s certainly not my tastes. If my tastes had anything to do with it, the masses would be attracted by witty vicious essays, and stimulated by them to go out and make the world anew. Turns out it doesn’t work like that—with the masses. You need tv. I didn’t say video, either. A video on youtube with a million views is still not tv. You need tv.
the clear answer would seem to be an ideology to galvanize the White few who would do the work of galvanizing the White many with muckraking.
If you don’t have tv, and we don’t, nor have we any prospects in near-medium future, then best you can do is come up with strategy and sell it to winter patriots. Make the difficulty of the cause the appeal, if appeal you must have. That’s how you attract the few and the strong. Once you have those, and I think a few hundreds would be enough to get it started, as long as you had a good number of vets in there, I think it would snowball, even without tv. I think if this group were following the strategy I indicate—a very simple and clear one—you could quickly attain national prominence as the one group that actually means it, apart from the jews.
How long do you think it would take to become a thing? Men who actually organize around (white) race—the thing that scares the establishment the most—and who wont back down when called racialists? I suggest to you that the minute words gets round that one of those is back in town, then it just might take off. And if that happens, you begin to get the point where that sitting judge is, let’s say, less likely to obstruct the will of the democratic majority for simple animal fear of his own ass.
Mob: “It stemmed from his deep-rooted Catholicism, which apparently teaches that Jews can and should be converted to Catholicism. In this, he resembles both Buchanan and Sobran.”
Yes. It’s the special horror of Catholicism. It simply defines the jew problem (the race problem) out of existence. But that doesn’t mean the problem goes away. It just means the catholic can’t acknowledge it. It also means that the catholic is the practical as well as theoretical enemy of the man who isn’t afraid to acknowledge it. The racist is “immoral” according to the Pape and his disskirted lessers.
As Philip Dick said, reality is that which doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it. By that standard race is real and jesus isn’t. Catholicism is fundamentally and unavoidably anti-White because it denies reality.
* * *
Of course, the posers at alt-right [Alternative Right] have no problem working with jew Gottfried. If you’re neither fish nor fowl you’re foe.
Yeah, another example of the one-way street that is the pale right’s dealings with jews. They subsidize, flatter and fawn over their controllers, namely jew Gottfried; in return they are enjoined to observe the same taboos the neo-jews insist on. The ICs [implicit conservatives] have much intellectual understanding, no political understanding, and a positively feminine concern with how they look to others.
[In the] NPI, which is a good proxy for CMS, you have it loaded with jew apologists like Taylor and outright jews—Stix and Rubenstein. So if there are technically no jews in CMS, which I do not assert, it remains true that there are certainly multiple people in CMS who are jew apologists and, in the case of The Turd, jew employers.
Posted by Mob
It’s distressing that the subject of Jared Taylor is still or again being discussed.
Back in January of 1999, when many of us were on both the original (not the present) AmRen elist and the CofCC elist, a huge problem arose when it was suggested by one of the contributors that David Duke, campaigning for Congress, should run for President in 2000 on a Buchanan/Duke ticket. I remember suggesting it be a Duke/Buchanan ticket instead.
Two sides rapidly developed, pro-Duke and anti-Duke. Some of the antis were Jewish, but some, like John Killian (dispensationalist Christian) were not. The thrust, though, was that there are “valuable Jewish members” of CofCC and AmRen—more valuable than Duke, who they would not want to associate with, and who would turn outsiders against the groups.
The outcome was that both of the heretofore very active and quite high quality lists were closed down, the same day, supposedly because of high traffic, but really because of the Duke affair. This was 1999, seven years before the Duke-Hart episode at the 2006 AmRen meeting, after which JT [Jared Taylor] sent out his formal letter, which I think I mentioned earlier in this thread or the Elitism thread.
Posted by Linder:
Jews are brought into the organization. This has only one meaning: American Renaissance is a jewish operation.
It should be treated that way. But it’s not. And those who say it should be are transformed into the bad guys by the WN who think principles don’t matter. It makes our cause a joke to say the things we do about jews—then turn around and give a loving embrace to someone like Jared Taylor who welcomes them into his fold.
Posted by Jimmy Marr:
Greg Johnson on Jared Taylor: “he also might believe that it is important to separate the race issue from the Jew issue”
I suppose it’s possible that Jared Taylor could actually believe such a thing, and I suppose Greg Johnson might actually believe that its harmless to believe such a thing.
But I believe no such thing, and I believe that believing such a thing is murderous (pre-meditated or involuntary).
My belief is supported by James Bowery’s theory of Jewish virulence.
A theory of Jewish virulence put forth by James Bowery is that it evolves from horizontal transmission of Jews between nations, in the form of repeated migration, since at least Babylonian times. Moreover, since diaspora Jews have become dependent on virulence for survival. They promote immigration and naturalization laws that are friendly to horizontal transmission more generally (here), resulting in virulence evolving in other populations.
This makes Jewish virulence more analogous to immuno-suppression virulence, such as HIV creates. This theory of Jewish virulence is complementary to both Kevin MacDonald’s thesis documented in The Culture of Critique and to Richard Faussette’s Niche Theory.
Under Bowery’s hypothesis, Jewish virulence evolved from the following horizontal transmission cycle (see Faussette’s Niche Theory for a possible starting point):
1. Hyper centralization of net assets (communist, capitalist, monarchy—doesn’t matter)
2. Social breakdown as middle class (Yeomen) are unable to afford subsistence
3. Grab and convert wealth in easily transported forms (gold historically, diamonds more recently, etc.)
4. “Virulent antisemitism” breaks out
5. Emigrate leaving behind less “savvy” Jews to take the heat
6. Cry out for help to elites at destination nation while offering concentrated wealth to enter new cycle (see step 1).
Posted by Lew:
It would be one thing for Jared Taylor to distance himself from the unhinged Jew obsessives, the simple-minded Single Jewish Causers and the irrational Jew haters on the White right.
Unfortunately, Taylor does not do this. He distances himself from those who fit that description and those on the White Right who are simply responding to ongoing Jewish aggression against White people.
Based on his public actions, Taylor recognizes no meaningful distinction between the former and the latter.
Taylor’s stance can be accurately summarized as follows:
“If you regard Jewish influence as one problem among the many problems that White people are facing in this world, fine; you are welcome to work with me as long as you check your concerns about Jewish subversion at the door.”
It’s not as if Taylor has an audience of millions like Pat Buchanan. It makes perfect sense for Pat Buchanan to cut things off at a certain point in order to keep his visibility in the mainstream and send books with vital information to the top of the best sellers list.
But Taylor has no visibility to preserve, his books will never appear on that list, yet he embraces Jews anyway and does so despite the fact that Jewish influence is the main reason he is a marginal figure.
Posted by Jimmy Marr:
Haller: “Alex Linder writes with a shotgun. Some of the pellets are made of steel; some lead; some cookie dough; and some shit.”
If the above is any indication, Alex’s writing is also having a salutary effect on your prose, Leon. Nice work.
Thanks for the kudos upthread. I deserve no share of credit for Bowery’s Razor. It reflects a level of creative insight of which I am wholly incapable if left to my own means.
Lew: “The people who bear the burden of explanation are the Jew-wise nationalists who work with philo-semites like Taylor and / or who also work with Jews.”
Yes. If we apply Occam’s Razor to this equation, the burden of proof falls squarely on the shoulders of those attempting to justify a more complicated explanation than Bowery produces in 50 words.
When the jews were coming here in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, why didn’t alarm bells ring?
Was the history of the expulsions suppressed? Would Americans have allowed entrance had they full knowledge of jew chicanery?
I don’t know, but if we assume I’m correct in my assertion that the Jewnome is host-specific to Europeans, it brings up another question: Why are they trying to blend us into other races?
The next question: how to break this cycle.
Alex’s proposal, unless fully executed, will ultimately serve to perpetuate the cycle. James Bowery mentions “blocking metabolic pathways” in the later part of his interview with Jim Giles.
It seems to me that whether we treat the Jewish problem with Zyclon B or through legislation designed to disable the inexorable logistics of their vampiric porosis, all will be equally and rightfully genocidal in their eyes, because they cannot survive without a racial host and they are host specific to Europeans.
So, regardless of proposed solution, Jews can be rightfully expected to sabotage the process at every opportunity, and must therefore be barred from any participation in the project.
NO JEWS. JUST RIGHT.
Posted by Hunter Wallace:
As I have described above to the best of my ability, the doctrine of the Single Jewish Cause is false, and so is the doctrine that “all White people are on the same side.” Both of these old WN chestnuts are easily refuted by history.
The truth about the Jews is that Jews are a contributing factor in our racial decline. It is one factor among many other factors—the salience of the Jewish Question also varies across countries—with Jews having the greatest impact in the United States, Britain, and France after the Second World War.
In the American North, there is a mythology that has grown up among WNs that “Jews made us liberal.” Every Southern historian howls with protest: what about John Brown, William Lloyd Garrison, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Frederick Douglass, Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner and the rest of the Black Republicans and the Wide Awakes who were behind Reconstruction?
As a matter of fact, it was the North that invented Jim Crow in the Antebellum era. The North had black codes that fined or outlawed black settlement in states like Illinois, Oregon, and Ohio. They also [had] anti-miscegenation laws in most of the Northern states.
Well, in the aftermath of the War Between the States, the North repealed the black codes, repealed the anti-miscegenation laws, and banned segregation in hundreds of state statutes in the Northern states… by the year 1900.
That’s a historical fact. Look it up.
___________________
Chechar’s note:
I’m not sure if Linder believes in a single cause of Western malaise since he himself blames “Christ-insanity” as a contributing factor. What is clear to me is that without the French revolutionaries’ blunder of granting full rights to the Jews, Europe would have been eventually spared from Bolshevik genocides and the Gulag (see here). And America would have been spared from the pressure Jewish groups that opened the gates for massive, non-Aryan immigration into the US—among many other calamities wrought by the tribe.
For those unfamiliar with MacDonald’s trilogy I’d recommend this Preface. For those already familiar with the JQ, James Bowery’s theory of Jewish virulence—Jim Giles’ interview of Bowery already linked above—is worth listening (Bowery proposes a solution to the Jewish problem different from Linder’s exterminationist standpoint).
or
Why every decent person should become
an anti-Semite: Second reason
A must-read piece by Francis Parker Yockey that I’ve just read thanks to Counter-Currents Publishing (here) throws incredible light on the Jewish Problem. He published it in January 1955: ten years before the 1965 Immigration Act (the subject-matter of a coming entry).
The early American arrived at a land of which he knew nothing. He did not know its geography, its fertility, its climate, its dangers. In the North, he encountered forests, rocky soil, and winters of a rigor he had not known before. In the South, he met with swamps, malaria, and dense forests. Everywhere he encountered the hostile savage with his scalping knife and his warfare against women and children. In little groups, these early Americans cleared the forests, and built homes and forts. The men plowed the fields with rifles slung over their shoulders, and in the house, the wife went about her duties with a loaded weapon near at hand. There were ships to and from Europe, and the colonials could have left their hardships and gone back — but they would not admit defeat.
Out of these colonials was bred the Minute Man. Minute Man! These American farmers were ready at a minute’s notice to abandon the plow and seize the gun. They knew that the hour of their political independence was at hand and instinctively they prepared for it. When the moment arrived, with a British order to arrest two of their leaders, the Minute Men assembled before daybreak at Lexington to face the British force sent to seize them. Though heavily outnumbered they stood their ground in the face of Major Pitcairn’s order to disperse. “If they mean to have a war,” said Captain John Parker, leader of the Minute Men, “let it begin here!”
Begin it did, and for eight long years it continued. Concord, Bunker Hill, Boston, Ticonderoga, Quebec, New York, Long Island, Harlem Heights, White Plains, Fort Lee, Fort Washington, Valley Forge, Trenton, Princeton, Brandywine, Saratoga, Stony Point, Savannah, Camden, The Cowpens, Yorktown — these names recall at once the terrific odds against which the colonials fought, the low points to which their fortunes reached, and the silent and steadfast devotion of the troops. At Valley Forge, the men were but half-clad, and rations, when there was food issued at all, were slim. Sickness was rife, and mortality was high, Yet no one thought of surrender. General Washington said of them: “Naked and starving as they are we cannot enough admire the incomparable patience and fidelity of our soldiery.”
No nation has produced individual soldiers to excel Nathaniel Greene, General Know, General Sullivan, John Stark, Nicholas Herkimer, Anthony Wayne, Daniel Morgan, John Paul Jones, nor greater patriots than John Dickinson, Richard Henry Lee, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Rutledge. These are but a few. The spirit which animated these heroes is part of the white race, and it will last while this race lasts. It waits for its reawakening upon the coming of great events to American soil once more. When the fields of this continent are visited once again by the stern creativeness of war — war for the independence and the liberation of the pristine American colonial spirit — the world shall see that Americans are not the weak-willed, self-interested, pleasure-mad morons that Hollywood has tried so desperately to make them.
It was the individual imperialism of the frontiersman-type that actually opened up and conquered the North American continent. Explorers like George Rogers Clark and John Fremont preceded the frontiersman into the wilderness, and he followed into the hostile land with its lurking warlike savages. With slung rifle he took wife and children and all his earthly belongings into the land ahead, unknown, unsettled, unplowed. Daily he surmounted a thousand dangers, he lived in the face of Death. This intrepid type who was at once explorer, warrior, minister, doctor, judge, and settler, advanced until he reached the Pacific, and then he looked toward Alaska and the westward islands.
The tragic defeat of the Federalists by the less worthy among the post-Revolution generation made it possible for sectionalism to arise in America, and out of sectionalism issued the disastrous “War Between the States.” That war proved only that the heroic type of American occurred everywhere in this broad land. The only lesson we can learn from the sacrifice is that big-mouthed agitators of the vicious stamp of Theodore Parker and Horace Greeley are capable of consigning nations to the flames in order to actualize their fantastic egalitarian theories.
During the conquest of the continent, small carping voices were continually raised against the heroic performance. Congressmen laughed at the idea of governing a region so far away as the distant Pacific coast. The Poets Lowell and Whittier and the agitators Garrison and Phillips did their best to bring about a sectional war during all of the 1840s and ’50s. Calhoun’s attempt to annex Texas was defeated by the Congress. Small minds were against the Mexican War and the acquisition of the Southwest. They opposed the acquisition of Hawaii, of the Philippines, of the Cuban protectorate. After the War Between the States, this type of mind, represented by men like Summer and Stevens, wanted to treat the Southerners as an alien and inferior people and to gloat over them while placing the conqueror’s foot on their necks.
This type of mentality still survives in America. Today it still fights against greatness and heroism. Today it teaches the doctrine of liberalism with its pacifism, its love for the inferior and misbegotten, its internationalism which makes a virtue of treason, its hatred of all who possess strong national feelings, its toothless desire for racial equality, and its tolerance of everything and everyone, particularly the alien and the unfit. Today this type of mind — namely, all those to whom liberal doctrines appeal — are working for the anti-American forces, whether consciously or not. The sub-Americans are in the service of America’s inner enemy.
We have seen the spirit of the white race: the spirit of divine discontent and self-help, the spirit of self-reliance, of fearlessness in the face of great danger, the feeling of racial superiority, the urge to great distances and the will to conquer all that lies between, the spirit of the Alamo. To the true American, his is a living, organic, white nation, and not a set of principles, of “four freedoms” or a “world-policeman.” Of this feeling was every great American: Washington, Hamilton, Henry Clay, Robert E. Lee, Sam Houston. The American soldier shows in every war that even today this true American type survives.
But today the true Americans, the former great leaders, have been displaced by Morganthaus, Ezekiels, Paswolskis, Cohens, Frankfurters, Goldsmiths, Lubins, Berles, Schenks, Edelsteins, Baruchs, Goldwyns, Mayers, Strausses, Lilienthals, Hillmans, Rosenmans, Lehmanns, Rosenbergs, Eisenhowers.
We know the true American and we know the liberal — the sub-type within the white race. Let us now look at the third group which came here only yesterday and which today is linked with the liberals, the internationalists, the class-warriors, the subverters, of America’s white, European traditions. This group makes use of American slogans and American ideas, but that cannot conceal its alien provenance. Let us measure the significance of the newcomers and examine their history.
The History of the Jew
The culture which produced the Jewish nation arose in Asia Minor around 100 B.C. This culture produced many nations, all of them, so far as we are concerned, similar to the Jews. These “nations” were not nations at all in our sense of the word, for they had no homeland. Citizenship in this alien type of nation was gained by being a believer in the religion of the group. Jews, Marcionites, Gnostics, Mohammedans — all these were nations, and to all of them membership in the nation was gained by being a believer. Intermarriage with non-believers was forbidden, and this inbreeding for two thousand years has made it possible today to pick out the Jew by his countenance. Thus, for the Jew, race and religion became identical, and if the Jew loses his religion, he loses little for he still remains a Jew by race. The unity of the race is not destroyed even though the great masses of the Jews become atheists.
After the dispersion of the Jews throughout Europe and Russia, they were entirely cut off from any contact with nations similar to themselves. They shut themselves up in the ghettoes of the cities and lived completely unto themselves. There they had their own religion, their own law, their own language, their own customs, their own diet, their own economy. Since they were nowhere at home, everywhere was equally home to them.
The early European nations felt the Jew to be as totally alien as he felt his surroundings to be. The Anglo-Saxons, the Goths, the Lombards, the Franks, all despised the usurious infidel. A popular rhyme of Gothic times portrays the three estates as the creation of God, and the usurious Jew as the creation of the Devil. Crusaders on their way to the Holy Land carried out wholesale massacres of Jews. Every European king at one time or another robbed the Jews and drove them from his domain. For 400 years the Jew was shut out from England. When he was allowed back, centuries more passed before he acquired or wanted civil rights of Englishmen. This persecution of the Jew that went on for 1,000 years took different forms — robbery through forced fines, extortion, exile, massacre — and it has had one determining, unchangeable result: it has reinforced in the Jew his original hatred for Christian civilization to the point where it is the sole content and meaning of his existence. This hatred is the breath of life to the Jew. He wants to tear down everything which surrounds him, every Western form of life, every Western idea. For a thousand years he cringed before the European master, who was so unassailable in his superiority. The figure of Shylock, drinking his gall and biding his time, taking his usury and saving the coins which represented to him the means of his liberation — this is the symbolic figure of the Jew for a thousand years. This consuming hatred on the part of the Jew is one of the most important facts in the world today. The Jew is a world power. How did this come about?
The Rise of the Jew to Power
It was the Industrial Revolution in Europe and America which enabled the Jew, from having been Shylock for a thousand years, the despised and cringing usurer, to become the type of the modern Jew, the cinema dictator, the tyrant of the inmost thoughts of 100,000,000 Americans. The Jew had been thinking in terms of economics and money for a thousand years before Europe and America began to develop a money civilization. Consequently when money stepped out as the supreme force, the Jew shot upward like a meteor. There was still a barrier however to his complete conquest of power. The heathen, the outsider, was still barred from civil rights. Of old he had not sought them, but now they were necessary if he was to conquer the master of yesterday. Nation after nation succumbed to the principles which the butchers of the French Revolution preached, and which the Jew took up and excitedly shouted over the world. A money civilization wants no aristocracy to stand in its way, so Money and Jew preached equality. Nor must there be any barriers to the employment of money, so the Jew preached liberty. He sought to lose his mark as outsider, for in his new role he wanted to be accepted as a member of whatever nation he might be among, so that he might conquer the power for his revenge. So he preached fraternity for others and the brotherhood of man.
But his “equality” meant only a new inequality — the dictatorship of the Master of Money over the economic slave tied to his bench with a wage-chain. His “liberty” meant that the Jew was free to squeeze out the life-blood of nations through usury and financial dictatorship. The “brotherhood of man” — that meant that the Jew was to be accepted as an equal — but that he was to maintain his ancient unity and desire for revenge. Now the point has been reached where he steps out and asks for special privileges — and gets them! Yesterday he denied aristocracy — today he affirms it — and he is the new aristocrat!! Did not Albert Einstein, before whom Americans are supposed to bow and scrape, write in Colliers Magazine an article entitled “Why the Jew is Superior”? And did not the white Americans afraid to think for himself any longer, read it and believe?
The Jew did not conceive nor organize modem industrialism. No more did he organize liberalism. But when these two things had become realities, he cleverly insinuated himself into the new social and economic fabric which arose, and he has now identified himself with the rapacious capitalism of the sweatshops and with the dishonest and revolting “democracy” of the type where Tweedledum opposed Tweedledee, and the Jew cares not which wins for he nominates them both.
There was a great danger to the Jew in this removal of all barriers between him and the host nations. This danger was assimilation of the great mass of Jews. If this were to occur, the Rothschilds, Baruchs, Frankfurters, Rosenmans, Guggenheims, Schiffs, Lehmanns, Cohens — all these would be leaders without followers. They would lose their trustworthy followers who could penetrate everywhere and spread the influence of the Jew. One fruitful source of taxation would be gone. So the word “assimilated” became a term of contempt used by arch-Jews to describe other Jews who were losing their Jewish feelings and instincts. The Jew, with his two thousand years behind him, was faced with a perilous situation. No mere money manipulation could cope with this emergency. In this situation, the Jewish leaders invented Zionism.
Zionism and the Pinnacle of Jewish Power
It was a political master-stroke on the part of the Jew to bring out the movement known as Zionism. Its ostensible aim was to seek a “national home” for the Jew, a plot of ground to which all Jews would theoretically return and there settle. Since the idea seemed to be to make the Jews into a nation like America, one with geographical boundaries, it seemed a praiseworthy movement to Americans. It seemed to promise the end of the Jews as the shifting sand dunes among nations, and to herald their establishment as a civilized nation. Hence unlimited Zionist activity and propaganda could be carried on among the Jews by their leaders, and no suspicion was aroused in the minds of the host nations.
But the real aim of Zionism was merely to save the Jew, wherever he was, from assimilation by the Western peoples, the European and American people. It enabled their leaders to unite the Jews firmly, to prevent assimilation by giving the Jews a political aim to follow. The spurious quality of the movement is shown by the fact that almost no Jews were moved to Palestine. A few only were moved, for commercial and political reasons and to conceal the Zionist fraud, but the millions remained in America and Europe. The real aim of Zionism — to reaffirm and perpetuate the solidarity of the Jew — has been successful. Zionism has become the official policy of the Jewish entity, and its ascendancy means, as far as the simple, ordinary Jew is concerned, that he is an utter slave in the hands of his leaders. It is probably superfluous to mention that no leading Zionist has gone from his position of power in white America back to Palestine. Nor need it be pointed out once more how few out of the millions of Jews driven from Europe have gone to Palestine. Almost to a man, they have come to America, their land of promise, the last base for their power, the last place for their revenge.
The invasion of Palestine, strategically important though it is, nevertheless stands in the shade of the vast invasion of America. During the short half century since Jewry adopted Zionism, some ten millions of Jews have been dumped on the shores of North America to displace Americans biologically and economically, to live parasitically on the American organism, to distort the social and spiritual life of the nation. The volume of the invasion has been such that even the slumbering, politically-unconscious white American has begun to blink his eyes and look around him in amazement, as he becomes gradually cognizant that his native land has passed into the possession of scheming, power-hungry, money-grubbing, total aliens.
The alien has his own press, in which he reveals those things which the democratic-liberal press dutifully conceals at the behest of the Jew. Pick up at random an issue of the Contemporary Jewish Record — that for June 1941. On page 282 we are told how Jewish educators are combating successfully “the un-American movement of 100% Americanism.” On page 259 a member of the American Jewish Committee joyfully reports that because of the hostility between American and Jew the successive waves of Jewish immigrants “will develop into a cohesive American Jewish community.” The article “The Jewish Emigrant — 1941,” describing the arrival of the Jew in America, says: “Our sole conclusion is that when the emigrant has finally arrived at his destination, he can consider himself at the entrance to Heaven” (sic).
Seven million of these immigrants have arrived at their “entrance to Heaven” since 1933. There is admitted hostility between them and their host-people. The Jew opposes 100% Americanism. Yet he calls his arrival here his “entrance to Heaven.” How is this?
The Rising Influence of the Jew in America
The North American continent was discovered, explored, cleared, plowed, and settled by the individual imperialism of members of the European-American white race. The political independence of America was won, and the industrial-technical system of the continent was planned and built by the white race. The American merchant marine was built and sent into the seven seas by white men. Every creative idea in whatever realm — political, economic, technical, religious, legal, educational, social — that has been brought forth on this continent has originated with, and been developed by, members of the white European-American race. America belongs spiritually, and will always belong, to the Western Civilization of which it is a colonial transplantation, and no part of the true America belongs to the primitivity of the barbarians and fellaheen outside of this civilization, whether in Asia Minor, the Far East, or Africa.
And yet, even though the Jew was not present at Valley Forge, even though he was not at New Orleans in 1814, nor at the Alamo, nor at Bull Run or Chancellorsville, nor at Guantanamo Bay or Manila, even though he took no part in the conquest of the continent — in spite of this complete dissociation of the Jew from the American past, it is a stark and gruesome fact that America today is ruled by the Jew.
Where Americans hold office, they hold it at the pleasure of the Jews and use it in deference to his policy. Baruch argues with Roserman on the steps of the White House — once the residence of Washington, Madison, Adams — and the policy of America is thus determined. LaGuardia calls Lehmann by a Yiddish term of abuse in public. As lawyer, the Jew brings in excessive litigation; as judges he imports chicanery into the administration, and has the power to pronounce rules of law for Americans. A rabbi states: “The ideals of Judaism and the ideals of Americanism are one and the same,” And the Jewish Chronicle (April 4, 1919) says: “The ideals of Bolshevism are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism.” The notorious rabbi Wise announces, “I have been an American for 67 years, but I have been a Jew for 6000 years.” The Jewish Chronicle tells us: “The Jews in America are 100% Jewish and 100% American.” These schizophrenic percentages resolve themselves into the thesis of the rabbis that Judaism, Trotskyist Bolshevism, and Americanism are one and the same. The synagogues have a parade of liberals — sub-Americans with defective instincts — come before them to parrot back at them their own view-point.
The Jew numbers approximately 10% of the North American populations but in the Second World War, a war fought solely for Jewish interests, a war of his fomenting, a war to increase his power, the conscripts in the American Army were only 2% Jewish, according to official records. Neither in his assumed role of American, nor in his actual status as member of the Jewish Culture-State-Nation-Race-People, was he willing to risk his blood, even in his own war. In the fighting forces he limited his participation to the administrative branches: Judge Advocate, Medical, Quartermaster, Finance. In the American Army Jewish conscripts have an unconditional right to a furlough for Passover, for Yom Kippur, for Rosh Hashanah. The induction of Jews into the Army is delayed over Jewish holidays — “to avoid undue hardship.” The Central Conference of American Rabbis in the 47th annual convention in New York addressed a resolution to the American Congress asking that Jews be exempted from conscription “in accordance with the highest interpretation of Judaism”!
In the publicly supported educational institutions for higher learning, the Jew is driving out the native American student. In the free universities, such as Wayne University and City College of New York, the Jew’s possession is complete. The Stock Exchange presents a similar picture. The New York Exchange is dormant on Jewish holidays. The Officers Reserve Corps is ever more penetrated by the Jews. The police forces of the large cities are under his control, and the Federal secret police enforce his bidding. He commands the National Guard in the populous states.
How has this come about? How has the native American been driven from the positions of representation, of power and respect in his own land? How has he been chased out of the professions, out of government, of the universities, out of the sources of public information? How did the interloper from Asia, the ghetto-creature from Kishnev, attain to his eminence whereupon he holds in his hands the decision of war or peace, and decides who are America’s friends and who are America’s enemies?
Two things are responsible for this situation in which America finds itself serving as a mere tool in the hands of an alien. First is Liberalism — the enemy of national greatness, the virus that eats up national feelings. Liberalism is the doctrine that everyone is equal, everyone acceptable, the doctrine that the botched, the misbegotten are equal to the strong and the superior, that there are no foreigners and no distinctions. Liberalism gnaws away at the structure for which patriots and great leaders gave their lives and fortunes. To Liberalism, America is a “melting-pot”, a dump heap for the world’s human refuse. When the white race in Europe drives out the Jew, he goes to America where weak heads and inferiors who are jealous of that to which they are not equal have laid down for him the red carpet of Liberalism, and on this carpet, the Jew has advanced to supreme power in the short half a century since he first discovered that America is a fine host for an enterprising parasite. Liberalism is the inversion of that 100% Americanism which the Jew hates.
But mere Liberalism alone does not account for it. The second factor has been the aggressive unity of the Jew, his cohesiveness born of hate, which has welded him together and organized his forces for his mission of destruction. By virtue of the cohesiveness of the Jewish entity, at once Culture, State, Nation, People, Race, Religion, and Society, the Jew conquered the cinema industry, the news-gathering associations which controls all “news” and journalistic opinion, the periodical and book press, and the radio networks. When it became obvious the “Republican” party was about to lose the 1932 election, he cleverly insinuated himself into the “Democratic” party, and placed his candidate in the Presidency. This was the Revolution of 1933, but since it had occurred in the form of a simple change of parties, the politically-unconscious American remained unaware.
In 1933, there descended upon Washington the swarm led by Baruch, Lehmann, Morgenthau, Frankfurter, Niles, and Rosenman. In their train were thousands of Paswolskis, Messersmiths, Lubins, Berles, Fortases, Lilienthals, Cohens, Ezekiels, Silversteins, et al., and bringing up the procession came enough lesser Jews, deracinated liberals, technocrats, and aliens to double the population of the capital city within a few years.
Between the cracks in the pavement the Jew recruited a thousand sub-Americans as “radio commentators,” newspaper “columnists,” and professional propagandists to disseminate the world-outlook the Jew considered appropriate for the American. A multiplicity of government bureaus came into existence, necessarily staffed with Jews. The Jew sought to bring under his control every factor of public expression and influence, thus to make sure that never again would there be a free national election for he did not intend to relinquish his power, so long dreamt of, and now at last real, through the free play of any constitutional game of parties and majorities. He purged the central government of whoever could not be led by the nose, or bought. Who opposed was shouted down, smeared with vile labels, and so silenced.
Thus America was given a semitic countenance.
English roses are the perfect Caucasians. One of my favorite films (see my YouTube trailer: here) depicts two English sisters marrying their kind in Jane Austen’s world.
Alas, yesterday my brother lent me a DVD of another British movie filmed this century. Orwellianly titled Love Actually, in this “comedy” one of the English actresses that starred in the Austen movie marries a Negro.
This made me extremely upset. I mean: even today I didn’t say any “Good Morning” to my bro, who had insisted that I watched the movie. But besides the marriage the other traitorous content of the film isn’t worth of more of my bile. Suffice it to say that, from a white nationalist perspective, Love Actually was reviewed here.
Elsewhere I’ve mentioned the “Day of the Rope.” However much I crave for such a day, I understand that in this Age of Treason a Nazi flag cannot touch anymore the vital keys of whites. Instead, to help deracinated whites understand why such kind of movies are sins against the holy ghost I need to make them see how the Zeitgeist of the post-liberal world, under the motto “There’s Only One Race” is not about love but about hate.
I just uploaded the image of a novel almost at the right top of this blog, Ward Kendall’s Hold Back This Day. It is a must read that has been tagged by one of the Amazon reviewers with these words: “Beware! You’ll be thinking about it after you read it!”
Today The Occidental Observer also reviewed Hold Back This Day and below I include an older review, originally published at Sormfront.
My brother may not be fluent in English: but I will nevertheless send him a link to my latest entries, including this review by a Sormfront member:
I have always been a huge Science Fiction fan, and I love any good story. Ward Kendall’s Hold Back This Day [available at Counter-Currents Publishing here] is a work of sci-fi that spins eternal truth in a mesmerizing web of technology, politics, and sociology.
Synopsis
Hold Back This Day examines the life of the protagonist, Jeff Huxton, a civil servant who functions as principal of a government school in what was formerly South Africa. I say “formerly” because the sovereign nations of the planet have ceased to exist as such in Kendall’s 22nd century.
In a global society of multi-hued brown, Huxton is an anomaly, a man of “sandy-gray hair,” “blue eyes and pale complexion.” Race or lack thereof, is not the only uniformity on this Earth of 19 billion humans. The planet itself is ruled from Beijing by one hedonistic, cosmopolitan bureaucracy. This is “World Gov,” the omnipresent and seemingly omnipotent ruler which is so reminiscent of “Oceana” and “Big Brother” in George Orwell’s 1984.
At this time, the Whites of Earth have been all but obliterated—primarily through government-mandated miscegenation but also as a result of mass executions following the Unification, a cataclysmic moment when the non-whites of the world were let loose to ravage and annihilate their technologically and intellectually superior brethren of European descent.
The result: Slavery in the name of freedom, monoculture in the name of diversity, perpetual famine in a gluttonous world, and technological stagnation—even regression—as a consequence of the unavoidable dumbing-down of global intellect.
To whom are the people slaves? To World Gov, of course! Despite their lofty rhetoric concerning “brotherhood” and “equality,” the leaders of the world actually demand a state of perpetual subservience from the global populace. They constitute an elite, and they stop at nothing to protect their status atop the swarm of starving mongrels.
Jeff Huxton, “skoolplex administrator,” has lived his entire life in this chaos. In his youth, he learned of the fallibility of the government. Nevertheless, any flickering doubts concerning World Gov’s righteousness are of no consequence: His indoctrination has been complete. To him, everything is justified in the pursuit of “cultural diversity.”
Huxton is reviled by his raceless contemporaries, and he likely would die as he lives but for one person, his son Adam. Like his father, Adam is of pure blood—wholly of European descent. He is ostracized at school, and he can find no satisfaction at home. Gradually, Adam finds the sense of belonging for which he yearns, but it places him and his father in extraordinary danger. Adam has found his own kind, not lost to the sands of time, but alive—on Mars.
Style
Hold Back This Day is an easy book to read; the sentence structure and diction are relatively simple. I estimate a fifth grader could understand 99% of the vocabulary.
Upon my first reading, I found no plot oversights that begged for resolution. However, there were several instances where I found myself thinking “Why are they doing this? Sensibly, one would have done ‘such and such’ but for one reason—literary suspense!”
In fact, much of Kendall’s work made me feel as if I were reading a sketch for a much larger and more detailed novel. At 179 pages [in the 2001 Nayra Publications edition; the Counter-Currents 2011 edition is 212 pages], Kendall bites off a lot to jam into such a small frame. While other readers may feel gypped, I commend the author for his ability to weave intelligently such a grand tale.
The question then remains: Why is Hold Back This Day only 179 pages? Without speaking with Mr. Kendall, one can only hazard a guess: Hold Back This Day is self-published. I don’t think Kendall is exorbitantly wealthy, and he likely packaged the text in what he felt to be the most economical form that is still true to his vision.
Substance
The tale told in Hold Back This Day is merely clothed in sci-fi garb. It is a story of eternal truth, but the fantastic backdrop Kendall creates takes nothing away from the message.
And what is that message? The White Race is on a collision course with disaster. Regardless of the causes, action must be taken now or all may be lost. Only a sci-fi plot twist saves Whites in Kendall’s book. The reader should not expect such Providence in reality.
I was very uncomfortable while reading the first four chapters of the book. Kendall’s writing is matter-of-fact and not prone to hyperbole or whining. It was this cold, unemotional exposition that was so disquieting. In this regard, Kendall should not be lauded for foresight. He is prophetic in the manner of a statistician: He looks at the present and extrapolates from that a logical conclusion.
It is flabbergasting to me that this book is available in wide distribution. The travails of self-publication notwithstanding, this book challenges the mindless treason of egalitarianism, which is worshipped (and increasingly demanded by statute) in every college, government institution, and most churches in the United States. Is it any wonder Kendall’s book wasn’t published by the masters of the media, who are directly responsible for the distribution of such filth?
Hold Back This Day is required reading for those who wish to peer into the foreseeable future. It comes in under the radar screen of political correctness, and may be a dangerous book to those who seek to establish the tyranny portrayed between its covers.
YouTube link.
Below, “The New Enemies of Evolutionary Science,”
an article by Dr Phil Rushton (pic above):
On January 19, 1989, in the Sausalito Room of the San Francisco Hilton Hotel, my life changed forever. I stood before a lectern speaking to a symposium of scientists belonging to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The title of the brief paper I proceeded to present to the meeting was “Evolutionary Biology and Heritable Traits (With Reference to Oriental-White-Black Differences).”
I reviewed the international literature recently published in academic peer-reviewed journals. I summarized data about traits like brain size, temperament, speed of maturation, family structure, and reproductive variables. I tentatively concluded, roughly speaking, that East Asians, on average, were slower to mature, less fertile, less sexually active, with larger brains and higher IQ scores than Africans, who tended to the opposite in each of these areas. Whites, I found, fell between the other two groups.
I further contended that this orderly tri-level hierarchy of races in average tendency had its roots not only in economic, cultural, familial, and other environmental forces but also, to a far greater extent than mainstream social science would suggest, in ancient, gene-mediated evolutionary ones. Heredity, or nature—to use the term popularized by Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s younger cousin—was every bit as important as environment or nurture, often more so.
To account for the racial pattern in brain size and the other “life-history variables,” I proposed a gene-based life-history theory familiar to evolutionary biologists as the r–K scale of reproductive strategy. At one end of this scale are r strategies, which emphasize high reproductive rates, and, at the other K-strategies, which emphasize high levels of parental investment. This scale is generally used to compare the life histories of widely disparate species but I used it to describe the immensely smaller variations within the human species. I hypothesized that Mongoloid people are, on average, more K-selected than Caucasoids, who in turn are more K-selected than Negroids.
I also mapped this theory onto human evolution. Molecular genetic evidence shows that modern humans evolved in Africa sometime after 200,000 years ago, with an African/non-African split occurring about 110,000 years ago, and a Mongoloid / Caucasoid split about 41,000 years ago. The farther north the populations migrated, “out of Africa,” the more they encountered the cognitively demanding problems of gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, making clothes, and raising children successfully during prolonged winters. As these populations evolved into present-day Europeans and East Asians, they did so by shifting toward larger brains, slower rates of maturation, and lower levels of sex hormone with concomitant reductions in sexual potency and aggression and increases in family stability and longevity.
I did not claim to have established the truth of these hypotheses. They may never by established in their entirety. But if they, or any part of them, or even any parallel hypotheses were eventually confirmed, we would have an explanation of why the measured traits are statistically distributed among racial groups in the distinct patterns evident in the data I had examined. The theories provided testable hypotheses and consequently complied with two fundamental goals of any science: the search to provide causal explanations of phenomena, and the search to unify separate fields of thought. These powerful incentives pulled me forward.
I emphasized two caveats in my presentation before the AAAS. First, because there is enormous variability within each population and because the population distributions overlap, it is always problematic to generalize from a group average to any particular individual. Secondly, because genetic efforts are necessarily mediated by neurohormonal and psychosocial mechanisms, many opportunities exist for intervention and the alleviation of suffering.
My hypothesis so stunned AAAS organizers that they quickly called a press conference to publicly dissociate themselves from my remarks. At the press conference, the president of the AAAS, Dr. Walter Massey, vice-president for research at the University of Chicago, told reporters that my credentials as a psychologist were good and that scholars participating in the conference were free to draw any conclusions they choose. Massey affirmed that the AAAS would never consider muzzling any scholar because the free expression of views was the essence of academic discussion. He went on to say that I had made “quite a leap of faith from the data to the conclusions” and that he found the paper “personally disturbing” and its conclusions “highly suspect.” The scene was eerily reminiscent of the closing sequence of the film Rosemary’s Baby with the media setting up to take pictures of the newborn devil, cloven hoofs and slit eyes, ready to raise hell on earth. I was about to become an academic pariah.
By the time I returned from the conference to my home in London, Ontario, and my job as professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, the uproar was in full swing. “Canadian Professor Provokes Uproar With Racial Theories,” proclaimed Canada’s national newspaper, the venerable Globe and Mail. “Theory Racist: Prof Has Scholars Boiling,” declared the influential Toronto Star. “UWO Professor Denies Study Was Racist,” trumpeted the local London Free Press.
Newspapers took my views to hostile social activist groups and got their predictably hostile opinion. They said I should be fired for promoting hatred. The press then took this idea to the president of the university who upheld the principle of academic freedom. The ongoing conflict was serialized for weeks. Student activist groups soon entered the fray, demanding that I meet with them in a public forum.
TV coverage of my theories juxtaposed photos of me with footage of Nazi storm troops. Editing and voiceovers removed any mention of my qualification that the race differences I had identified were often quite small and could not be generalized to individuals and didn’t mention that like any decent human being I abhor Nazi racial policies. Newspapers caricatured me as wearing a Ku Klux Klan hood or talking on the telephone to a delighted Adolf Hitler. The Toronto Star began a campaign to get me fired from my position, chastising my university and stating “This protection of a charlatan on grounds of academic freedom is preposterous.” Later, the same paper linked me to the Holocaust saying, “[Thus] there emerged the perverted ‘master race’ psychology of the 20th century, and the horror of the Holocaust. Oddly, the discredited theories of eugenic racism still are heard, most recently from an academic at an Ontario university.” I had no choice but to hire a prestigious law firm and issue notices under the Libel and Slander Act against the newspaper. This brought the media campaign against me to a halt.
Hate Crime Laws
In the U.S. there is a First Amendment to protect the right of every citizen to free speech and there is not much the government can do to silence unpopular ideas. In Canada and many Western European countries, however, there are laws against free speech, ostensibly enacted to inhibit “hate” and the spreading of “false news.”
Two weeks after my AAAS presentation, the premier of Ontario denounced my theories. My work was “highly questionable and destructive” and “morally offensive to the way Ontario thinks,” he said. It “destroys the kind of work we are trying to do, to bring together a society based on equality of opportunity.” The premier told reporters he had telephoned the university president and found him in a dilemma about how to handle the case. The premier said that he understood and supported the concept of academic freedom, but in this particular case dismissal should occur “to send a signal” to society that such views are “highly offensive.”
When the university failed to fire me, the premier asked the Ontario Provincial Police to investigate whether I had violated the federal Criminal Code of Canada, Chapter 46, Section 319, Paragraph 2, which specifies: “Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of an indictable offense and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.”
The police questioned my colleagues and members of the administration and professors at other universities, demanded tapes of media interviews, and sent a questionnaire to my attorney to which I was obliged to reply in detail. (There’s no Fifth Amendment in Canada either.) After harassing me and dragging my name through the dirt for six months, the Attorney General of Ontario declined to prosectue me and dismissed my research as “loony, but not criminal.”
This did not halt the legal action. Eighteen students, including seven Black students, lodged a formal complaint against me to the Ontario Human Rights Commission claiming that I had violated Sections, 1, 8, and 10 of the 1981 Ontario Human Rights Code guaranteeing equality of treatment to all citizens of the province. In particular, I was charged with “infecting the learning environment with academic racism.” As remedy, the complainants requested that my employment at the university be terminated and that an order be made requiring the university to “examine its curriculum so as to eliminate academic racism.”
I was outraged. A more flagrant attack on the right to freedom of expression was difficult to imagine in a supposedly free country. “Human rights” tribunals were becoming a menace—a direct threat to the very human rights and fundamental freedoms they were supposed to protect. The Ontario Human Rights Commission could no more change the truth about human races than could the Christian Inquistion about the solar system or the KGB about the genetics of wheat. I found it difficult to accept the increasingly obvious fact that in the post-Soviet world, an academic was freer to say what he believed about some things in Russia, than in Canada.
Four long years after the complaint was lodged, the Ontario Human Rights Commission abandoned its case against me claiming it could no longer find the complainants to testify.
Events at the University
In its relations with the outside world the university administration stood firmly for academic freedom. The president gave a press conference to state categorically that there would be no investigation of me, that I would not be suspended, and that I was free to pursue any line of research I chose.
Behind the scenes, however, I became the target of a witch hunt by some of the administrators. Dismayingly, my dean, a physical anthropologist, publicly declared that I had lost my scientific credibility and spearheaded an attack on me in the newspapers. She issued a series of preemptive statements making plain her negative opinion of me and my work.
“What evidence is there for this ranked ordering of the evolution of the human races?” she wrote. “None.”
Claiming that her views represented only her academic opinion she emphasized that she was not speaking in any administrative capacity. Her letter was nonetheless widely interpreted in the media as a refutation by my “boss.” Henceforth, in order to support me, a person would now have to go up against the dean in addition to prevailing opinion. Next, the chair of my department gave me an annual performance rating of “unsatisfactory” citing my “insensitivity.” This was a remarkable turnaround because it occurred for the same year in which I had been made a Fellow of the prestigious John Simon Guggenheim Foundation. My previous twelve years of annual ratings had been “good” or “excellent.” Indeed, my earlier non-controversial work had made me on of the most cited scholars in my university.
Because unsatisfactory ratings can lead to dismissal, even for a tenured professor like me, I contested the rating through various levels of grievance, wasting an enormous amount of time and emotional energy. The proceedings that followed were Kafkaesque, terrifying when they weren’t simply funny. For example, the grievance procedures required that I first appeal the Chairman’s negative assessment to the Dean. The Dean had already spoken out against me, so I asked the Dean to recuse herself from hearing the case. She refused. So I had to appear before her.
At my hearing, the Dean’s folded arms and glowers of fury made her decision obvious, and six weeks later, she upheld the Department Chair’s decision. In a seven-page letter justifying her decision, she cast aspersions at my “sensitivity,” and my sense of “responsibility,” and questioned whether ther were, in fact, “any” papers that had ever been published that had supported my perspective other than those I had written myself.
I decided on a more drastic defense. I wrote to colleagues around the world and received over 50 strong letters of support, many endorsing the evidence I had presented. When the Dean found out about this she went absolutely ballistic, on one occasion screaming and spitting at me in fury.
I eventually won my appeal against the Dean and the Chair and two separate grievance committeess chastised them for their actions against me. My annual performance ratings are back to receiving grades of “good” and “excellent.”
Some radical and Black students mobilized and held rallies, even bringing in a member of the African National Congress to denounce me. In one demonstration, a mob of 40 people stormed through the psychology department, banging on walls and doors, bellowing slogans through bull horns, drawing swastikas on the walls, and writing on my door “Racist Pig Live Here.”
The administration responded by barring me from the classroom and ordering me to lecture by videotape on the pretext that they could not protect me from the lawlessness of students. Again I launched formal grievances. After a term of enforced teaching by videotape, I won the right to resume teaching in person, though then I was required to run a gauntlet of demonstrators shouting protests and threats. Only after several forced cancellations of my classes did the administration warn the demonstrators that further action would lead to suspension and legal action. That brought the protests to a halt.
De Facto Censorship and the Corruption of Scholarship
As a graduate student at the London School of Economics and Political Science in 1973, I witnessed a physical assault on Hans Eysenck, who was studying the biological basis of intelligence and had recently published his book Race, Intelligence, and Education (1971). The slogan of that day was “Fascists Have No Right To Speak,” and Eysenck became a target for attack. No legal charges were brought for the widely witnesses assault because another popular slogan of the 1960’s, for those who approved the message but disapproved the tactic, was “There are no Enemies on the Left.”
Stories of harassment and intimidation could be told by many others who have had the temerity to research topics that touch on the genetic or distributional basis of race differences.
Today, many campus radicals from the 1960’s are the tenured radicals of the 1990’s. They have become the chairs of departments, the deans, and the chancellors of the universities: senior political administrators in Congress and Houses of Parliament, and even the presidents and prime mimisters of countries. The 1960’s mentality of peace, love, and above all, equality, now constitutes the intellectual dogma of the Western academic world. There are laws to prohibit platforms for those denounced as “fascists” and others deemed to be not politically correct.
In his book, Kindly Inquisitors, Jonathan Rauch showed that even in the U.S. with the First Amendment in place, many colleges and universities have set up “anti-harassment” rules prohibiting —and establishing punishments for— “speech or other expression” that is intended to “insult or stigmatize an individual or a small number of individuals in the basis of their sex, race, color, hankicap, religion, sexual orientation or national and ethnic origin.” (This is quoted from Stanford’s policy, and is more or less typical.) One case at the University of Michigan became well known because it led a federal court to strike down the rule in question. A student claimed, in a classroom discussion, that he thought homosexuality was a disease treatable with therapy. He was formally disciplined by the university for violating the school’s policy and victimizing people on the basis of sexual orientation.
In Canada and Western Europe, governments can and do prohibit speech on topics they consider obnoxious. In Denmark, a woman wrote a letter to a newspaper calling national domestic partner laws “ungodly” and homosexuality “the ugliest kind of adultery.” She and the editor who published her letter were targeted for prosectution. In Great Britain, the Race Relations Act forbids speech that expresses racial hatred, “not only when it is likely to lead to violence, but generally, on the grounds that members of the minority races should be protected from racial insults.” In some parts of the world you can be jailed, exiled, or even executed for expressing forbidden opinions.
Irrespective of religious background, or political affiliation, virtually all American intellectuals adhere to what has been called ‘one-party science.’ For example, only politically correct hypotheses centering on cultural disadvantage are postulated to explain the differential representation of minorities in science. Analyses of aptitude test scores and behavioral genetics are taboo. Cheap moralizing is so fierce that most people respect the taboo. This intellectual cowardice only encourages viscious attacks by activist groups on those who are engaged in legitimate scientific research showing that there is a genetic basis underlying individual and group differences.
The high-placed pervasiveness of the egalitarian orthodoxy is scary. Even more frightening than what happened to me is the experience of Christopher Brand, professor of psychology at Edinburgh University. On February 29, 1996, Brand’s book on intelligence, The g Factor, was published in the United Kingdom by the British subsidiary of John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. On April 14, newspaper reports of interviews with him began to appear saying that he thought black people had a lower IQ than did whites and that these were probably partly genetic. On April 17, Wiley’s company in New York denounced Brand’s views as “repellent” and withdrew the book from bookstores. A blizzard of “refutations” of Brand appeared in the U.K. media under outraged headlines. Protests from members of Parliament, student boycotts of his lectures, and calls for his resignation by faculty at the University of Edinburgh all predictably ensued. Brand’s refusal to be silenced and his defense of free speech led him to be fired (on August 8, 1997) for bringing his university into disrepute. There but for the grace God, go I.
In 1995, my monograph Race, Evolution, and Behavior was published by Transaction Publishers. Subsequently, the book was translated into Japanese (1996) and released as a softcover edition (1997) with an Afterword updating the science since the hardback went to press.
The book garnered a lead review in the New York Times Book Review (October 16, 1994) where Malcolm Browne, the Times science writer, discussed it along with Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve and Seymour Itzkoff’s The Decline of Intelligence in America. Browne concluded his analysis with the statement that “the government or society that persists in sweeping this topic under the rug will do so at its peril.” Dozens of other journals, including the National Review, Nature, and The Nation, also reviewed it.
Its publication by an important academic press touched off a new round of hysteria. A lurid article screaming “Professors of HATE” (in five-inch letters!) appeared in Rolling Stone magazine (October 20, 1994). Taking up the entire next page was a photograph of my face, hideously darkened, twisted into a ghoulish image, and superimposed on a Gothic university tower. In another long propaganda piece entitled “The Mentality Bunker” which appeared in Gentleman’s Quarterly (November 1994), I was misrepresented as an outmoded eugenicist and pseudoscientific racist. A photograph of me was published in brown tint reminiscent of vintage photos from the Hitler era.
Incredibly, Canada Customs seized and witheld copies of one shipment of the book for nine months while they tried to decide whether to condemn the book as “hate literature” and ban it from entering Canada. The fact that an academic book was even the subject of an investigation stunned my publisher: “I’ve never heard of such a thing,” said Mary Curtis, Chairman of the Board of Transaction. “This is not supposed to happen in Canada. The last time the company had trouble shipping scholarly works was in the mid-1980’s, when some books shipped to the Moscow Fair didn’t make it.”
Michel Cléroux, a spokesman for Canada Customs, said Customs were just following orders by investigating possible hate propaganda. A departmental policy prohibiting hate propaganda includes this definition: “Goods alleging that an identifiable group is racially inferior and/or weakens other segments of society to the detriment of society as a whole.” After an “investigation” lasting nine months, Canada Customs relented.
Harassment continued at another meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The AAAS routinely allows the militantly disruptive International Committee Against Racism (INCAR) and Progressive Labor Party (PLP) to have official “Exhibitor” status, along with a booth, at its annual meeting. At the February 1996 meeting in Baltimore, INCAR and PLP festooned their booth with posters of Karl Marx and signs taking credit for interfering with the University of Maryland conference on “Genes and Crime” in September 1995.
At the AAAS meeting, INCAR targeted my poster presenting a review of the literature on brain size and cognitive ability. When INCAR encountered me the day before the poster presentation, they yelled so many death threats that the AAAS called the Baltimore police, who dispatched an armed officer to stand by the presentation. Despite the guard, INCAR continued to utter threats. One demonstrator took photographs of me saying they were for a “Wanted: Dead or Alive” poster. “You won’t be living much longer,” he said. Incredibly, instead of cancelling the Exhibitor Status of organizations that threaten violence, the program director of the AAAS’s annual meeting said, in an interview published in The Scientist (March 4, 1996), that AAAS would tighten up the screening process to make it more difficult for presentations like mine to get on the program!
As Charles Murray has observed in the aftermath to The Bell Curve, social science is corrupt on the topic of race. Yet, the genetic hypothesis for the pervasiveness of the three-way racial pattern across so many traits, and which calls into question simple explanations based only on social factors like discrimination and poverty, needs to be discussed.
In his commencement address to the graduating class of 1997 at the University of California (San Diego), U.S. President Bill Clinton called for a new dialogue on race and for “deepening our understanding of human nature and human differences.” But apparently there are some aspects of human nature and human differences he’d rather leave unexplored.
I’ve learned a great deal since that day in 1989 when I stood before that meeting of scientists and presented a summary of my research, thereby making myself the target of harassment by the politically correct and the object of intimidation by the government of Canada. Despite the viscious campaign against investigation of the possible genetic basis of group differences, my interest never wavered. Work on other topics seemed shallow by comparison. Spurred by attacks and aided by colleagues, I have sought out more definitive tests of the genetic hypothesis and continue to publish my research.
I’ve also learned how important freedom of inquiry is to science, which must always remain to pursue truth without regard for where that pursuit leads. I’ve learned to treasure such remnants of freedom of speech as I enjoy as a citizen of Canada, and remain more committed than ever to the search for truth. As Benjamin Franklin observed more than two centuries ago, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.”
