200 Years Together has been a rallying cry in racially aware circles for as long as I can remember. The book is notorious for its failure to find an English publisher. The American Jewish community has invested many hours in preventing 200 Years Together from finding a wider audience. That is a positive indicator that it is worth reading.

Check it out.

Get Whitey

No One (White) Is Responsible for Anything.

That’s the screaming headline of the Rev. David L. Ostendorf’s lead article at Imagine 2050, the web publishing arm of the Center for New Community, a Chicago-based “civil rights organization.” Mr. Ostendorf is upset that White America is not being browbeaten into collective racial guilt over the Gulf Oil Spill.

Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, is White. The BP Board of Directors is another inexcusable collection of pale faces. BP has failed to contain the Gulf Oil Spill. Thus, White America is responsible for this ecological disaster, as White Americans and their European cousins belong to the same race.

Among our other racial sins, White America is to blame for slavery, the Civil War, Jim Crow, the failure of “comprehensive immigration reform,” the plight of blacks, the failures of American energy policy, and the 2008 recession and financial crisis on Wall Street. Whenever Whites are involved, Ostendorf doesn’t hesitate to wag his sanctimonious finger and make group judgments.

These are the same people who demonize us as “racists” and “anti-Semites”  for pointing out that blacks commit a disproportionate number of rapes, robberies, and murders in America or that Jews are overrepresented in corrupt Wall Street investment banks like Goldman Sachs. They also like to pull out and wave the magic wand of individualism whenever these legitimate grievances are raised.

There is a clear anti-White double standard: when White individuals engage in bad behavior, Whites as a race are to blame; when Jews and non-Whites engage in bad behavior (or fail in their responsibilities), either the non-White individual or Whites are blamed.

In David L. Ostendorf’s twisted imagination, Whites are never held accountable for their actions. What planet does this guy live on?

George W. Bush was blamed and held accountable for Hurricane Katrina, the Iraq War, and the Wall Street financial crisis. The GOP was held accountable for outrageous levels of government spending, pushing amnesty in the teeth of overwhelming grassroots opposition, and two endless wars in Eurasia. Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008.

I can think of several other recent examples: in spite of his seniority, Arlen Specter lost the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania; Bob Bennett lost the Republican primary in Utah; Larry Craig was shamed out of the Senate in Idaho; Reverend Ted Haggard was exposed to public ridicule and lost his former lucrative position in the National Association of Evangelicals; George Allen lost his Senate seat in Virginia after his “macaca” moment. White politicians and public figures are held accountable for their actions all the time.

It is blacks who are never held accountable for their actions. Jesse Jackson cheated on his wife and fathered a child out of wedlock. Yet he remained a credible public figure. Al Sharpton was not discredited by the Tawana Brawley fiasco or the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a plagiarist and serial adulterer, but now looms larger than George Washington in the American pantheon of heroes. In the current environment of political correctness, comedians are terrified to crack jokes about Barack Obama lest they be accused of “racism.”

Blacks have destroyed almost every country in post-colonial Sub-Saharan Africa. They have laid waste to Detroit and numerous other American inner cities. It is more dangerous to spend a night on the streets of Chicago than to patrol the front lines of the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. Blacks have never been held accountable for decades of consistent underperformance relative to Whites on standardized tests.

Every excuse in the world is made for blacks. Their plight is laid at the feet of nebulous unquantifiable abstractions (which, unlike IQ, leftists are sure exist) like “the legacy of slavery” or “the white racial frame” or “structural racism.”  Amazingly, blacks can succeed at basketball, but not in physics. The “structural racism” of academia (which includes millions of dollars alloted for multicultural centers and diversity hires) must be holding them back in a way that professional sports is not.

If the President of the United States was White and the CEO of BP was black, Rev. David Ostendorf would be defending BP and attacking the White House right now. The Left savaged the Bush administration for its “slow response” to the devastation of New Orleans. They would undoubtedly be pushing the same narrative today if the roles were reversed.

Barack Obama’s race has determined their response. Far from being irrelevant, race is the best predictor of their attitude on any given subject. Obama is forgiven for his neglect of Louisiana; Bush is excoriated. Arizona is compared to Nazi Germany for protecting its border; excuses are made for Mexico. Whites are blamed for “hate crimes”; blacks cannot be blamed for violent crimes.

There is at least one element of consistency in all this: in every case, Imagine 2050 tows the most anti-White line possible. Where they stand has never been clearer than in this article.

The term “racism” is a rhetorical ploy to dupe Whites into surrendering their racial interests. As we see here, racism against Whites is perfectly acceptable in self-described “anti-racist” circles.

White Nationalists learned this lesson long ago. Those new to our circles would be well advised not to take the rhetoric of our opposition at face value.

I’ve only seen one of the essays submitted myself. It is a really good one. I had intended to write a contribution before taking this job. I definitely have an opinion on the subject and will probably write something anyway to contribute to the anthology.

Site Note: The first article from the previous issue of the journal should ready for release tomorrow. Stay tuned.

I’ve been appointed as the caretaker of TOQ Online. Samuel Phillips has already introduced himself as the new webmaster. This website will serve as a repository for articles from back issues of the journal. The plan is to post an article a week. I will probably be posting these articles on the weekend while everyone is off work and has the time to read them. It is unclear whether additional material will be posted on a daily basis.

There will be a few other changes. A new section will be created that will allow TOQ subscribers to download a PDF version of the journal as soon as each new issue is released. There has been a spirited debate in our community as to whether TOQ should shift entirely from print to digital media. The new online version of the journal should provide some valuable feedback and help us resolve this question.

Greg Johnson has a new radio show on Voice of Reason. He is the Editor or a new website called Counter Currents. You can reach him at his new email address. I’m sure these two new outlets will develop into a content rich source for his prodigious energies. I’m told he will soon be publishing some great new books about the European New Right. Look out for those.

Note: There will be some technical changes coming soon. This website might go offline for a few days as we complete the transition.

When I hear the word “progress,” the mental image of advanced technology comes to mind, in particular that which relates to space exploration. I think of future generations of White men expanding out into the inner solar system: landing on Mars, colonizing the moon, mining the asteroid belt, etc.

In the Bush years, I was excited by the Mars rovers and the Cassini mission which discovered seas on Titan. Along with the National Park Service, I counted NASA among the handful of things that gave me some lingering sense of pride in America.

So it was a punch in the gut to hear that the Obama administration is literally destroying the U.S. Space Program. NASA’s Constellation Program is being scrapped and the space shuttle retired. The next manned American spaceflight won’t lift off until some vague date in the 2020s. In the meantime, the transportation of American astronauts to the International Space Station will be outsourced to Russia and China. The U.S. will voluntarily relinquish its leadership role in space exploration. Thousands of American workers – the cream of the high technology industry – will lose their jobs in NASA states like Florida, Alabama, and Texas.

But don’t worry: America’s HNIC has promised we will land on Mars sometime in the 2030s – decades after he leaves office – years after any number of ticking timebombs (Medicare, Obamacare, Social Security, uncontrolled Third World immigration) crash the federal budget and tank the U.S. economy. Under the stewardship of affirmative action appointments at NASA, the black and Hispanic scientific geniuses of the future currently graduating from America’s public schools will take us there.

The last scheduled American shuttle launch is May 31, 2010. Mark your calenders. It will probably be the last time Americans travel to space on their own initiative.

A future that will never happen.

Occidental Dissent, April 21, 2010

Here is a brief snapshot of life is really like in the world’s first “post-racial society.” The material compiled here are all stories that have come out of South Africa over the past two weeks. Most of them are taken from the local press. This is the indispensable background to the Eugene Terre’blanche farm murder and the “racial tension” the MSM is wailing about.

1.) Potholes and Healthcare – A traveling salesman is driving through the North West where he dodges a metre-wide pothole, overturns his car, and gets flung out of the window. George Struwig lands on the tar road where he suffers a shoulder injury.

Struwig gets shuffled around to three hospitals before appropriately landing in the Steve Biko Academic Hospital (named after a famous terrorist), a state hospital, near Pretoria. After three days without medical assistance, Struwig’s wound begins to putrify. His brother transfers him to a private hospital where surgery saves his limb from amputation.

While at the private hospital, Struwig notices there are patients there who have gone weeks without treatment. A guy in his ward couldn’t feed himself and the medical personnel would leave the food by his bed and where he can starve as he watches it.

Under black rule, the incompetent South African government has proven unable to maintain the transportation infrastructure and the White healthcare system they inherited.

2.) Terror in Mozambique – A South African tourist and his girlfriend visit Maputo, the capital of nearby Mozambique, to set up a procurement business. The beautiful countryside of Mozambique, which the tourist describes as “nearly untouched by man,” exists in stark contrast to Maputo which has been destroyed by feral negroes. Under black rule, Mozambique (formerly a prosperous Portuguese colony) is ranked among the lowest nations on the U.N. Human Development Index.

Upon arrival at a border post, the tourists are accosted by locals. They are harassed by the local police who carry AK-47s. The black soldiers intimidate the tourists into giving them R500. After checking into their hotel, the tourists are again intimidated by black soldiers with AK-47s who rob them of all their money. Somehow the tourists procure more funds and visit the most reputable restaurant in Mozambique where the staff runs their credit cards twice.

The South African couple returns home determined never to visit Mozambique again. This is what life is like for Whites marooned in Sub-Saharan Africa in the aftermath of triumphant anti-racism.

3.) More Terror in Mozambique – In Mozambique, sixteen South African tourists are robbed and a White woman is raped by blacks. The blacks attempted to rape another Afrikaner woman unsuccessfully. They left the gas on in the room (attempted mass murder) where the men were gagged and bound. Mozambique officials will be “discussing” the safety of tourists.

4.) The World’s Most Expensive Banana – A negro shoots a black teenager in the head on the suspicion that he was eating a stolen banana.

5.) Abortion South African Style – A couple wraps their newborn baby in a plastic bag and throw it out the window of their accelerating vehicle. Try guessing the race of the suspects.

6.) A Casual Stroll – Three negroes assault a pedestrian and fight for “their turns” to rape her. The woman was forced to perform fellatio on one suspect while the other raped her. The trio are in court facing 14 counts of rape. During the violent attack, one of the suspects casually alluded to another gang rape they had performed previously. Justice works in mysterious ways in the “Rainbow Nation.”

7.) Your Life Savings – Four armed negroes break into the home of a black man and rob him of his life savings. They shoot him in the stomach. The robbers invade the home of the neighbors and threaten to shoot a 10-year-old boy.

8.) Free Enterprise in “Azania” – A White butcher is murdered by two negroes on his way to work.

9.) Thriving Small Business Sector – In the middle of the night, back thieves attempt to liberate the safes of two businesses with explosives. Two more black thieves rob a business in a shopping center.

10.) Women in the Workplace – A White woman is attacked by a vicious negro slasher at the gate of her workplace who repeatedly stabs her in the head, arm, and neck. Her boss finds her covered in blood.

11.) Don’t Trust the Police – In Durban, four black police officers abduct a White female attorney. They rough her up, slap her across the face, and call her a “racist bitch.” She felt “defenceless.” In Johannesburg, three senior black police officers engage in drug smuggling, theft, and fraud. A black female police officer sells pot to keep her children in school.

12.) Government Corruption – An ex-ANC Youth League official is arrested for stealing credentials.

13.) Measles Returns – 3.1 million babies in South Africa are being immunized to stop outbreaks of measles from ravaging the country. Under White rule, measles, polio, and malaria were all but eradicated, but have returned under black rule.

14.) Babies Aren’t Safe – A negro is lynched by a mob after he is caught raping a 3 month old baby.

15.) Children Aren’t Safe – A negro is arrested for raping a five-year-old. Negroes murder a White 15-year-old boy, break his neck, beat him until he is unrecognizable, and get off scot free.

16.) Adults Aren’t Safe – A homeowner is stabbed to death by negroes who insist on passing through his yard. Negroes hijack several buildings and force property owners to pay them rent.

17.) So Much For School – Public schools are being closed down in Johannesburg left and right as they are abandoned by negro students.

18.) Don’t Use The ATM – It cost this White man his life.

19.) Vigilante Justice – A mob of negroes lynch a negro for killing an elderly man. Give credit where it is due: this rapist got what he deserved.

20.) Congo Craziness – Meanwhile, up north in the DRC, Congolese rebels kidnapped a Spanish doctor and shaved off all his body hair in the hope that it would give them magical powers in battle.

21.) Nationalization – South Africa takes the first steps toward the nationalization of its mining industry. Julius Malema is determined to follow Zambia off the cliff.

22.) The Elderly Aren’t Safe – An elderly White man with Alzheimers is beaten to death by a mob of negroes for stealing a candy bar. A security camera video shows he did not resist arrest. He later died in police custody.

23.) So Much for Democracy – Malema’s supporters scrap the secret ballot and use a show of hands to steal elections.

24.) Public Utilities Falling Apart – The ANC is doubling its stake in the drive to build new power stations as blackouts continue to plague South Africa. Blacks are literally tearing down the power lines to sell copper on the black market.

25.) Viva Malema! – A White farm family is attacked by feral negroes shouting “Viva Malema”; Nelson Mandela’s former White bodyguard goes missing; a 19 year old White girl is sadistically tortured and burned with cigarettes by black home invaders.

26.) Animals Aren’t Safe – Pets haven’t fared any better in Nelson Mandela’s new and improved South Africa.

27.) Family Friends Aren’t Safe – A domestic servant of Terre’blanche was herself murdered after discovering the murder plot. Some “wage dispute.”

28.) Prisoners Aren’t Safe – You don’t want to end up in a South African prison.

Now back to Eugene Terre’blanche. As previously noted, the above is the context in which all of this is happening.

A vicious and baseless rumor has circulated in recent days that Eugene Terre’blanche was murdered after sodomizing his farm workers. A tabloid reported over the weekend that police had found a condom at the crime scene. Jeffrey Imm of R.E.A.L. delightfully ran the story. The South African police have denied recovering any evidence of sexual impropriety. The lawyer of the accused has dropped the sodomy charge after saying his own client’s story made no sense.

Last week, Terre’blanche was peacefully laid to rest by friends and family. As Kievsky pointed out, 1 in every 1,000 South African Whites attended the funeral, an extraordinary turnout for “washed up has been” and “relic of Apartheid.” AWB members wore uniforms and sieg heiled as their leader was lowered into the ground. White children waved the AWB’s three pronged swastika flag. Other supporters waved the flags of the former independent Boer republics. In his gruesome death, Eugene Terre’blanche did more to advance the cause of Afrikaner secession than he ever did in life.

The South African Institute of Race Relations is concerned about the escalating racial tension in the country. It notes that White farmers are being viciously murdered and the ANC has used affirmative action and “black empowerment programs” to create a corrupt patronage network. The so-called “progress” in race relations of the past fifteen years is being undone. The ANC has enriched itself and failed to alleviate the plight of the impoverished negro underclass. They have responded by stirring up race hatred against Whites.

Interestingly, the South African Institute of Race Relations notes that the ANC is entirely dependent on White farmers to feed the country. The flight of Whites abroad will drain South Africa of its tax base and technical expertise. Whites are crudely seen as a sort of cattle that produce the milk which keeps the whole rotten system float. If they bail, secede, or lose faith in the doubleplusgood experiment in “multiracial democracy,” the result would be disastrous for blacks, who are the only people “human rights organizations” are concerned with. The government must “live up” to this challenge.

That seems increasingly unlikely.

Julius Malema recently kicked a BBC reporter out a news conference and announced “this is the building of a revolutionary party and you know nothing about the revolution.” ”Don’t come here with that white tendency, go out bastard, bloody agent.” He gleefully noted that the reporter was “a small man” who was in no position to put up a fight. In recent days, Malema has bucked the leadership of his own party.

The ANC has cynically told the foreign press that it aims to reduce racial tension. Meanwhile, it is fighting the ban on the “Kill the Boer” song and is even paying for the legal defense of Eugene Terre’blanche’s murderers. Julius Malema has described Zimbabwe’s land reform measures as “courageous and militant.” “Land reform in Zimbabwe has been very successful,” Malema said, adding that Mugabe’s programme was a “very correct method”.

As hard as it is to believe, Julius Malema is a “moderate” compared to some factions in South Africa.  The Pan African Congress is encouraging its supporters to sing the “Kill the Boer” song in open defiance of the South African Supreme Court. “We call on our people to sing the songs Shoot the boer and Zuma’s Umshini wam (Bring me my machine-gun). This is part of their struggle,” PAC general secretary Mfanelo Skwatsha said on Tuesday to mark April 6 as the date on which the PAC was launched. The PAC wants South Africa to be renamed Azania after the complete Africanization of the country.

I haven’t seen the Western media decrying all these extremists. Black supremacists have the wrong skin color. They don’t fit into the standard PC narrative of evil Whites and noble blacks. Azania is treated as a legitimate aspiration of oppressed “people of color.” A White ethnostate in South Africa is demonized as the second coming of the Third Reich. What loathsome hypocrisy.

The Whites of South Africa face a stark choice: submission or secession. The first option has resulted in the ethnic cleansing of Whites in every other African country. 1/4th of South African Whites have already fled the country. More will flee when Julius Malema becomes president and implements Zimbabwe-style land reforms. The epidemic of violent crime in South Africa is already arguably a stealth genocide.

The second option is to fight back and secede from a failed state whose corrupt government no self respecting White man would ever swear fealty to. The list of causes that American colonials felt justified their secession from the British Empire – taxes on tea and stamps – are trivial compared to the horrors endured on a daily basis by Whites in South Africa.

Negro savages have raped your wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters. They have slashed the throats of your aunts, uncles, grandparents, and kin folk. They openly sing about your extermination as a race. They gleefully brag on the internet about reducing your women to chattel sex slaves. This inept government has stolen your wealth, demonized your history, disrespected your most cherished cultural symbols, instituted racial discrimination against your posterity, violated your property rights, allowed the most basic of public services – justice, security, health, education, infrastructure – to fall into disrepair. It is your natural right to abolish this Third World monstrosity.

Occidental Dissent, April 14, 2010

White Virginians know the history of their state better than anyone. In 1860, Virginia was carried by John Bell, the Constitutional Union candidate. Virginia rejected secession after the Cotton States left the Union. The majority of Virginians didn’t believe Lincoln’s election warranted secession and favored a compromise solution like those of the past. The only reason Virginia seceded from the United States is because Lincoln decided to resort to force to coerce the Confederacy.

Virginians refused to take up arms for a Northern despot to spill the blood of their co-ethnics. That was the real issue. Lincoln’s own policy was that slavery could flourish in the states where it already existed. He didn’t foresee the final extinction of slavery happening until the twentieth century. Most Virginians thought South Carolinians and Alabamians were misguided to leave the Union, but acknowledged their right to do so. The states had created the federal government, not the other way around.

Lincoln’s attack on the Confederacy was seen as the destruction of republican government in America. Virginians clung to the old notion that the legitimacy of any government rested on the consent of the governed; coercing the Southern states back into the Union at bayonet point made a farce out of America’s own vaunted principles. It was a states’ rights issue, plain and simple. A tyrannical precedent was being set.

This is how the conflict was seen around the world at the time. Europeans wondered why the 13 American colonies had the right to unlawfully rebel against the British Empire, but the 13 Confederate states didn’t have the right to withdraw from the Union. It didn’t make any sense. Wasn’t George Washington a rebel? Weren’t the Founding Fathers of America openly committing treason by throwing down the gauntlet of the Declaration of Independence before the world? The Confederates were only taking America’s republican principles to their logical conclusion.

But this is a digression into history. The present and future is what should concern us. Bob McDonnell naming April as “Confederate History Month” is only a small victory for us. February, for example, is “Black History Month.” The month of April already honors financial literacy, crime victims, organ donors, and child abuse prevention. May is simultaneously “Jewish American Heritage Month” and “Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month.” Mid-September to Mid-October is “Hispanic Heritage Month.” The descendants of Confederate veterans, the majority of White Virginians, are only asking to be honored alongside all the other groups in the multicultural pantheon.

Yet this is controverial. ”Confederate History Month” was even rescinded when Mark Warner and Tim Kaine were Governor of Virginia. America’s ruling class (and its underclass of racial grievance groups) look down on White Southerners. In their eyes, White Southerners are synonymous with white trash, racists, white supremacists, nativists, rednecks, bigots, hicks, hillbillies, etc. They do not believe in lowering themselves from their lofty perches of moral superiority to acknowledge that White Southerners are their equals. At the New York Times, we are openly described as an “anachronism” destined to fade into history. Unlike every other group, White Southerners are not allowed to celebrate our culture and heritage, or have a positive sense of ethnic identity and self worth.

In my mind, this raises a fundamental question: as a White Southerner, one of the millions of American natives loathed by our hostile elites in Washington and New York City, why should I desire to be a part of the same Union as these people? We literally have nothing in common: racially, ethnically, culturally, or politically. These people salivate over their dream of the future in which my descendants will become a degraded, oppressed minority in the land of their ancestors. I have come to dream about the glorious day when White Southerners wake up and sever our ties with these loathsome hypocrites forever.

Just think about it: in a society where children are aborted by the millions, where the institution of marriage is redefined, where young women aspire to careers as porn stars, where young men look up to Lil’ Wayne instead of Robert E. Lee,  why should the Union of all things be sacred? Individual couples get divorced all the time. The Left considers this an inviolable right. The people of the United States now have less in common than some of the most bitterly separated partners. It would be better for all parties involved to go our separate ways.

Frankly, I realized long ago that America is lost. The Confederacy had the right idea in striking out on its own. Too bad we lost. I passionately despise our national government for similar reasons. My loyalty has devolved back to my local community, state, and co-ethnics in the American South. It certainly doesn’t belong to the alien regime in Washington, DC with its genocidal policy of White dispossession.

Occidental Dissent, April 9, 2010

The BBC isn’t reporting the race of the suspects, but President Jacob Zuma’s “appeal for calm” telegraphs that this was yet another black-on-white murder. The Afrikaner Resistance Movement is claiming the murder was racially motivated.

Terre’blanche became a controversial figure in South Africa after founding the AWB in 1970 and opposing the end of apartheid in the 1990s. Since his release from prison in 2004, Terre’blanche had been advocating Afrikaner secession from the failed state of South Africa, the so-called multicultural “Rainbow Nation.” Back in October, Terre’blanche received some press coverage over his plan to petition the United Nations to recognize an independent Afrikaner homeland. I blogged about the story at the time.

Like many of you, I wish I could say that I am shocked and surprised. That’s not the case. Whites are brutally raped and murdered all the time in South Africa. For years, South Africa had the sobriquet (a label it might still carry) of being known as the “It once had the highest rape rate on Earth. A woman is raped every 26 seconds in South Africa; 40% of those are children, 65% are gang rapes. It is commonplace for children and babies to be raped in the new and improved South Africa. Blacks even molest animals to avoid catching HIV. Under black rule, South Africa is also an innovator and world leader in murder, assault, robbery, and hijackings.

Black supremacy has gradually made the country unlivable for Whites. Since 1995, 800,000 of 4 million South African Whites have abandoned the country and moved abroad. In fact, the level of White emigration out of South Africa is “at a pace consistent with the advent of widespread disease, mass natural disasters or large scale civil conflict.” The majority of White South Africans are victims of negro violent crime themselves or have a close friend or relative who has been victimized by “people of color.”

Young Whites are crushed under the weight of affirmative action. Many White families in South Africa now live in poverty. They don’t have the resources to escape. Last year, Canada granted asylum to a White South African man who fled the country to escape persecution. He had been stabbed three times by blacks. The South African government denounced the ruling as “racist.” Whites live in fear of South Africa going the way of Zimbabwe. Blacks have threatened to drive Whites out of the country after Nelson Mandela dies: the most likely endgame for the world’s first “post-racial” society.

South Africa is a case study of what Whites in the United States can expect once we lose our majority status: wealth redistribution, institutionalized racial discrimination, epidemic levels of violent crime, endemic poverty, historical revisionism, destruction of cultural symbols, rule by racial grievance groups, gated communities, economic stagnation and decline, environmental degradation. White women in South Africa wear an anti-rape device in their vaginas that cuts off the penis of their black attackers. Under non-White rule, White technological ingenuity might find similar outlets in America. The home security industry will undoubtedly flourish.

No one in their right mind would prefer to live in such a hellhole. An Afrikaner ethnostate would remove all of these problems in a single blow. Violent crime would disappear. Affirmative Action would be outlawed. Multiculturalism would be abolished. Public services would flourish again. The government would be controlled by competent personnel instead of racial grievance groups who reward their co-ethnics with plush government sinecures. The economy would recover. South African expatriates might even return.

Eugene Terre’blanche died for the dream of an Afrikaner homeland. I hope his sacrifice was not in vain. This outrage must not be forgotten.

Note: Occidental Dissent is very interested in providing a platform for South African writers who wish to speak out against black supremacy and tyranny in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and other African nations. This website has always felt a sense of kinship with other colonial Whites in the European diaspora.

Occidental Dissent, April 4, 2010

In particular, White women are disillusioned with America’s first black president. According to a recent Quinnipac Poll, 55% of Tea Party members are women versus 45% men. This belies the stereotype of Tea Party activists as Nazi stormtroopers reenacting Kristallnacht on the Congressional Black Caucus. The Tea Party Movement has always had prominent female leaders like Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin.

Obama’s declining approval ratings are partially attributable to his policies. The Washington Times gets this right. A mid-March Gallup survey found that while 57% of Whites thought Obamacare would help the uninsured, only 20% thought it would help their own families. Working class White voters also tended to be more skeptical of “health care reform” than their more affluent White peers.

So far Obama has only received a “dead cat bounce” from the passage of his administration’s signature piece of legislation. According to Reuters, “‘Obama’s approval seems to have moved up a few points during and slightly after passage. Then it fell back down again.’” For a candidate running on his record in 2012, this can’t be good news.

What the Times editorial gets wrong is the assumption that Obama’s declining approval rating has nothing to do with race. Obama’s support among White voters began to collapse back in July 2009 when he sided with Henry Louis Gates over Officer Crowley. His approval rating slipped seven points among White voters solely because of his racial solidarity with the “Big Cheese” of Harvard.

That memorable incident punctured his “post-racial” aura. The holier-than-thou Left jumped the shark this week and browbeat White America over its bigotry and racism. After this fit of moral self righteousness is over, I doubt Obama will ever recover the “post-racial” image in the eyes of White voters.

The most intelligent liberal commentators understand that all this braying about White racism works to our advantage. It defuses the charge, alienates independents, and encourages implicit Whites to tune out shrill liberal voices while becoming more receptive to White Nationalism.

I’m hoping this news cycle will continue. Keep up the good work boys!

Occidental Dissent, March 30, 2010

I know how the “tea party” people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their “Obama’s Plan: White Slavery” signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.

I am sick of these people — and those who make excuses for them and their victim-whiner mentality.”

Any White columnist who wrote a similar column for a conservative magazine or newspaper threatening violence against blacks would be fired on the spot. He would be untouchable. His career in respectable mainstream journalism would be over. “White privilege” works in mysterious ways.

The Tea Party Movement can bury its collective head in the sand and pretend that the healthcare debate is not about race. The Left passionately disagrees. It is composed of professional grievance organizations (racial, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation) who are accustomed to thinking in ”us vs. them” terms. They look at the Tea Party protests and see scores of angry White people. The mental image of White resistance to the Civil Rights Movement (Bull Connor and firehoses) instantly comes to mind.

Once again, I will reiterate one of the oldest White Nationalist adages: you might not be interested in race, but race-based groups are interested in you. The Tea Party Movement is going to be demonized as “racist” for no other reason than the fact that the majority of its members are White, angry, and opposed to Obama. We’ve come full circle in America: White skin color is now enough to earn you hatred, vitriol, and racial abuse from the multiculturalist establishment.

Here are a few questions I would like to ask the Tea Party Movement:

1.) In light of recent experience, do you still believe we are “progressing” toward a “post-racial” society, or does it seem more likely that Whites will become a degraded over-taxed minority as our numbers dwindle?

2.) Do you think your White grandchildren will live in a better world than the one you inherited?

3.) Does the America you love seem to be slipping away?

4.) Barack Obama promised a “post-racial” America in his 2008 campaign. Does this seem like a “post-racial” society to you? If Barack Obama can’t move America beyond race, can anyone?

5.) Do you honestly believe all of these privileged race-based groups will suddenly fall to their knees and embrace individualism and colorblindness any time soon?

6.) Have you ever pondered the thought that America might be lost?

I suspect your answers are similar to ours.

In The Washington Times, Jeffrey Kuehner wonders whether America will break up in the future. He notes that the American Heartland is dangerously alienated from the political class in Washington. Kuehner points out that the rhetoric of state sovereignty, states’ rights, and nullification are back in the air.

White Nationalists have already accepted this fate. The broader American Right finally appears to be moving beyond its distraction with Islamic terrorism and realizing that the country itself is being subverted from within. The earliest glimmers of this awakening might portend unsavory consequences for the Obama administration.

Occidental Dissent, March 28, 2010

He predicts the Tea Party Movement will radicalize in its frustration with the Republican establishment and the defeats inflicted upon it from the Left. A significant cross section of the Tea Party Movement (the purists who reject electioneering) might get involved with the growing militia movement or migrate to the White Nationalist fringe.

That’s one possible scenario. Personally, I think it is unlikely to materialize. Instead, the Tea Party Movement will be invigorated by its defeat and will attract more independent voters into its ranks who disagree with President Obama’s policy initiatives on immigration and healthcare. The economy won’t turn around over the summer and the Republicans will retake Congress in November.

The Tea Party Movement will interpret its electoral triumph as a sign that frustrated conservatives should continue to work within the system. In the meantime, the Tea Partiers will fight Obamacare in the federal courts and through separate state action. The great conservative hope will come along on his (or her) white horse — Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin — and will ride the wave of anti-government sentiment and activated implicit whiteness to victory in 2012.

The “Don’t Tread on Me” coalition of Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, White Nationalists, and alienated White male blue collar Democrats will prove short lived. The crafty Republican establishment will hijack the movement, install its own people in positions of power, and milk the Tea Party Movement for everything it is worth. Jews and White liberals will continue to control the commanding heights of American culture and poison the young with their degenerate ideas.

Barack Obama’s defeat in 2012 will be interpreted by the liberal establishment and the black community as the definitive proof that White America is hideously racist and reactionary. Blacks have never understood the concept of a changing of the guard. In our major cities, once blacks install one of their own in power, they feel entitled to indefinite black rule. I predict a turbulent period of race relations ahead, not the “post-racial” utopia that the mountebank in the White House promised in 2008.

The Left has failed time and again to take the rhetoric of the Tea Party Movement at face value. They have assigned to these people a crypto-racist agenda that the vast majority of Tea Partiers do not share. In their hearts, the majority of Tea Partiers truly believe in individualism and MLK’s ideal of colorblindness. That’s why their ultimate destiny is to be crushed by the Minority Majority of organized racial grievance groups.

In 2010, the Tea Partiers are certainly innocent of the left-wing charges of “racism,” but in the future that might change. Most White Nationalists once believed in the vague liberal vision of a post-racial El Dorado. There came a point though in each of our lives when the so-called anti-racists pushed too hard and we spit out their whole message.

As the Left’s vision of a “post-racial” utopia crumbles in the eyes of White Americans, White Nationalists are eagerly waiting on the sidelines. Unlike the Faux Right, we have a clear vision of what needs to be done. The White Nationalist movement is increasingly sophisticated, organized, and effective at getting its message out. In the proper historical conditions, we will be prepared to break out of our isolation.

Occidental Dissent, March 26, 2010

That hasn’t happened. The Frumbots lashed out. Imagine 2050 and Red Jeffrey piled on. I’ve addressed them all in previous posts. Some idiot called E.D. Kain (who no one knows) wrote another hit piece yesterday evening. Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs chimed in last night. The house negro at Republicans United whined about racism. I felt his pain.

More of this is coming down the pike. This is good news for a brand new website! Alt Right’s enemies have inadvertently created a lot of buzz and publicity for Spencer’s project. I know it is a cliché by now to point this out, but conservatives are reliably stupid. The smart thing to do would have been to enforce “dynamic silence” and contain the brush fire to the racialist community. Maybe Alt Right would have died a quiet death in obscurity.

The temptation to respond proved irresistible for several reasons: 1.) In the introduction video, Richard Spencer twisted the nose of David Frum, and the bots were ordered to respond. 2.) The VDARE connection was fodder for left-wing conspiracy theories. 3.) Red Jeffrey religiously follows our sites and would have commented anyway. 4.) Alt Right is aesthetically superior to other “hate sites.” 5.) Charles Johnson is obsessed with sniffing out fascism in the conservative movement and this fits into his ongoing narrative of right-wing evil. 6.) Alt Right uses a discourse unfamilar to braindead liberals and conservatives who have been living in a bubble for the last twenty years.

A cursory glance at the negative reviews leaves me convinced of the superiority of the “Alternative Right.” This is a genus larger than Spencer’s website. Tim Mak, for example, doesn’t seem to know that we have never called ourselves “racists” and “sexists.” These are terms of abuse imported from the left. Imagine 2050 thinks Alt Right is Peter Brimelow’s website and that Chronicles is a “White Nationalist” magazine. E.D. Kain and Charles Johnson ramble on about “human biological diversity” (read: “human biodiversity”) and reveal their total ignorance of the subject.

A common charge from the Faux Right is that Alt Right uses a “politically correct terminology” to whitewash “racism.” Terms like “human biodiversity,” “evolutionary psychology,” and “sociobiology” have been around for decades. Scholars like E.O. Wilson have written important books in the natural sciences about these subjects. “Racialism” dates back to the early twentieth century and was in use years before “racism” appeared in the 1930s. A subscriber to “human biodiversity” believes the average differences in racial groups are partially attributable to heredity, but such a person is not necessarily a “racist,” as HBD does not imply a vertical hierarchy of “superior” and “inferior” races. Most HBD types are libertarians, not White Nationalists. This distinction is lost on Beltway conservatives whose worldview was formulated on a diet of trash like Comeback: How Conservatives Can Win Again or How to Talk to a Liberal if You Must.

There is a large group of – how should I put this, young men of the right – who were intelligent enough to see through this garbage many years ago or never bothered with it. I stopped reading Ayn Rand when I was 21 years old. There is little of interest in the American conservative canon. Most of the best titles (admittedly, there are a few classics worth reading) were written decades ago and have no relevance to the neocon dominated Beltway conservative movement. Libertarianism has a stronger intellectual tradition, but like so much of philosophy, it is ultimately nothing more than empty sand castles in the air based on allegedly “self evident” axioms like the non-aggression principle. Try running that one by the Neanderthals.

There is no “one true system” of social science analogous to the laws of physics. The liberal arts and social sciences like political science, sociology, philosophy, psychology, anthropology, and history can collect data, discover patterns, and inform our actions with practical advice, but they will never prescribe the “one true model” of human behavior. The Enlightenment and Christianity have sent us on this fool’s errand. At the end of the day, human behavior is still largely governed by custom, habit, and tradition.

Even more primordial forces are at work. Human behavior is far too predictable to be learned. We eat, drink, sleep, blink, breathe, fuck, fight, marry, reproduce and much else without giving much thought to our actions. We experience a range of emotions that produce instant value judgments. Humans evolved these behaviors because they were adaptive to our survival in the real world. Traditions persist across generations when they are adaptive to present environmental conditions and foster reproductive success.

This concept of adaptiveness gives us a measuring stick which we can use to analyze competing intellectual traditions and behaviors. We can see right off the bat that feminism, homosexuality, abortion, and birth control do not foster high birthrates. Expressive individualism leads to high divorce rates and low parental investment. Excessive materialism is a strong deterrent to family formation. Third world immigration floods Western nations with hostile aliens who do not share our heritage or ethnic interests. The guilt cult of multiculturalism doesn’t inspire confidence in our civilization and its future.

Let’s travel further down this road. High taxes punish young White families and depress birthrates. Affirmative Action takes jobs away from White males in their reproductive years. Transfer payments to non-Whites (welfare and government healthcare) take money away from White families and disproportionately redistributes their wealth to hostile fecund minorities. Whites are forced to subsidize inferior public schools for negroes and Hispanics and pay again for schools for their own children. Whites pay inflated prices for housing in distant suburbs to avoid the costs of non-White violent crime. Free trade and outsourcing suck highpaying American jobs overseas and force potential mothers into the workforce. Dysgenic foreign wars to “spread democracy” abroad kill off the most heroic and masculine White males in their prime.

The “Alternative Right” cannot be accused of intellectual vacuity or inconsistency. Our worldview is based on a careful analysis of the American cultural and political scene from the perspective of self interest. We reject flighty universal abstractions in favor of visceral concrete ideals – blood, soil, nation, and faith – that produce adaptive behavior in the real world. We endorse customs, habits, traditions, and public policies that work for us. We want to lift the minds of America’s deracinated White youth out of gutter and give them a sense of purpose.

What does the Faux Right have to offer the American majority? In his response to Richard Spencer, E.D. Kain talks about “respect for tradition,” but never explains what is meant by this. He says in the comments of his article that John Derbyshire is “deserving of the ash heap of history” for his rejection of feminism! Kain also wrote to Charles Johnson - the deranged leftist proprieter of Little Green Footballs – to encourage him to attack Richard Spencer. There is a seamless transition between the far left and the neoconservative right. They are one of the same force. The Charles Johnson-Frum Forum connection proves it.

The sole purpose of the Faux Right – Frum Forum being a prime example – is to introduce retreads of the most crazy leftist ideas from twenty years ago into the conservative movement and push the national political spectrum to the left. The whining and crying about “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” “nativism,” and “reactionaries” reflects their leftist agenda. I suppose a secondary purpose would be to provide careers in politics for useless Beltway hacks who cannot contribute to society in a more productive way.

The Faux Right doesn’t believe in racial, national, or cultural preservation. They are not carrying on any discernable American tradition. These people despise pre-MLK America. They seek to “transform” the United States into a nation that reflects progressive ideals (read: a minority-majority country). To his credit, Charles Johnson has at least openly stated his allegiance to the left, which somewhat limits his effectiveness. The neocons at Frum Forum share his radical anti-White agenda, but are smart enough not to discuss it openly.

Charles Johnson is right about one thing. White Nationalists are on the march. We’re going to smash the Faux Right in Washington one way or another. The future existence of our people demands it.

Occidental Dissent, March 14, 2010

1) Racial Consciousness

Southerners are far more racially conscious than Whites in the Pacific Northwest. There are still millions of Americans who cling to traditional racial values. The majority of them live in the South. In Alabama, I would argue that at least 1 out of 2 Whites are racially conscious to some degree. The rest have a high degree of “implict whiteness” that could be activated in the right conditions. More Whites voted against Barack Obama in Alabama than in any other state.

The strongest argument for the South is that racialists have a base in the region. The South is a fertile area for in reach activism. There are millions of Southerners who agree with us on race who have never heard of White Nationalism because of the media blackout. We have more human material to work with. We have more people who are potentially receptive to our message.

In some states, creating a racialist majority is not outside the realm of possibility. David Duke almost won some important races in Louisiana in spite of his Neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan baggage. A cleaner candidate with a professionally run campaign could conceivably become Governor of a Southern state. The Council of Conservative Citizens already have sympathetic elected officials in the Mississippi state legislature.

2) Political Correctness and Multiculturalism

Political correctness and multiculturalism have invaded Southern college campuses. Every SEC college has an Office of Diversity and Multiculturalism or its equivilant. I would argue though that PC and multiculturalism have weaker roots in the South than any other region. Universities are commonly fortresses of liberalism, but Southern college students tend to be apathetic or apolitical.

It is not uncommon for Southern fraternities to ridicule political correctness. A huge controversy at Ole Miss is brewing right now over being forced to choose a new PC mascot. Contrast Ole Miss with UC San Diego. Outside the liberal college towns, White Southerners are even more likely to hold political correctness and multiculturalism in contempt. It would be easier to overthrow both in the South than in the Northwest.

3) Liberalism

At least rhetorically, the majority of White Southerners are opposed to liberalism. They voted against Barack Obama and have since flocked into the Tea Party movement. In contrast, the Seattle-Portland urban corridor in the Northwest is a progressive stronghold. Washington and Oregon have voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1988.

White Southerners get most of the conservative social issues: abortion, multiculturalism, illegal immigration, affirmative action, welfare, crime. In the South, White Nationalists still have to move the goal posts, but we don’t have to move them as far as in the Northwest.

4) Culture

As everyone knows, racialism has deeper roots in Southern culture than in any other region of the United States. The South was committed to white supremacy for three centuries. Residual traces of that heritage still exist in the South. These embers could potentially be stirred up into a bonfire again. It would be easier to do this in the South than in the Northwest. We have more material to work with.

5) Ethnicity

The South is unique in that the great waves of European immigration tended to avoid the region. The vast majority of European immigrants settled in the Midwest, West, and New England. White Southerners have deeper roots in America. The typical Southerner is more likely to be descended (in whole or in part) from the original White settlers.

Millions of White Southerners now identify as “Americans” on the Census. Their families have been in America for so long that they have “gone native” and shed European ethnic affiliations. Southerners are more patriotic because they have more invested in the United States. When your ancestors fought in the American Revolution, Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, WW1, WW2, and Vietnam, naturally, you feel a greater sense of connection to America, its history and heritage, and its destiny.

I have no doubt that Southerners are more willing to fight for their idea of America. It would be easier to persuade them to fight for a White ethnostate because they have more to lose. After moving from Alabama to Virginia, I can still sense that I am living among my own people. The accents and culture are familar. White Southerners are an ethnic group that occupy a huge contiguous geographic region. Virginians and Alabamians are blood relatives only a few generations removed from a common stock.

In other parts of country, that just isn’t true. Poles live among Irish, Germans, and Italians. Southerners are related by blood, soil, history, climate, and culture. They move less often. We have more in common than the disparate other groups who live elsewhere in the United States. It would be easier to mobilize White Southerners around a common political goal. There are fewer obstacles in the way.

I love that line from The Good Shepherd where Joseph Palmi says, “Let me ask you something … we Italians, we got our familes, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland; Jews, their tradition; even the niggers, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?” And Wilson responds, “We have the United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.”

6) Tradition

The idea of a White ethnostate originated in the South. Specifically, it can be traced back to the Upper South in states like Virginia and Kentucky where Whites often lamented the presence of blacks and yearned for the day when they would be spirited off to Africa. The history of the American Colonization Society is well known in racialist circles. Maryland and Virginia colonized thousands of their blacks in Liberia. After the Civil War, there was a renewed push to deport blacks to the Belgian Congo led by Senator Morgan of Alabama. Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi pushed the idea in Congress in the 1930s and 1940s.

7) Actual Examples

The South has a history of ethnic cleansing. Famously, the Five Civilized Tribes were deported to Oklahoma from the Southeast under the Jackson and Van Buren administrations. After the Civil War, the Ozarks region of Arkansas expelled its negro residents and became a de facto White ethnostate. In the Great Migrations, half of the blacks in America relocated to the North rather than endure segregation and white supremacy in the Jim Crow South.

Geographical Proximity

How would Southerners thread the needle of Greg Johnson’s dilemma? You can’t have strong racial consciousness without multiracialism, but you can’t have a White ethnostate by including non-Whites? The answer lies in geographic proximity: if a White ethnostate was created in proximity to a negro ethnostate, it would define its own identity in opposition to its African neighbor, in much the same way that Germany defined itself against France. A Southern ethnostate would prove more enduring.

9) Separatism and Secession

The South is the only region of America that has ever seceded from the United States, fought a bloody war against the US federal government, and existed as an independent country. The Jim Crow South was essentially granted “home rule” for over half a century. No other region of the United States has such a strong independent sense of identity.

Southerners alone have an ethnic and national identity to fall back on. However attenuated that identity may be, it still exists, and in the right conditions could potentially be reactivated. Secessionist groups already exist in the South. A stronger feeling of anti-government sentiment prevails in the region. Given their heritage, Southerners are more receptive to the idea of secession than other Americans.

10) Building Blocks

The South has the building blocks of a potential White ethnostate. I’m referring to the White Belts that exist throughout the region. In these areas, Whites are 90% of the population or more, but heavily black areas are nearby and the focal point of racial consciousness. Historically, the White Belts have been notorious for their aversion to blacks.

In the South, racial separatism could take the form of a migration of Whites from the Black Belts to the White Belts. The spine of a Southern ethnostate stretches down the Appalachian Mountains from West Virginia to North Alabama. Large portions of North Alabama, North Georgia, East Tennessee, Western North Carolina, Eastern Kentucky, and West Virginia are relatively White. It would be sensible to salvage these areas. They would be easier for Southerners to relocate to than to the Northwest.

In an upcoming post, I will respond to some of the criticisms of a Southern ethnostate. These include Christianity, nationalism, economic dependence on blacks, the popularity of multiracial college football, devotion to the GOP, and the spread of miscegenation, multiculturalism, and political correctness in the region.

Occidental Dissent, March 11, 2010

Basically, I am skeptical of the idea of a Northwest Homeland, but not opposed to the movement. If White Nationalists want to relocate to the Pacific Northwest, I wish them the best of luck. A comrade of mine is a frequent traveler in the region. He is very impressed with Wyoming and Idaho. I think he plans to relocate there eventually. The Northwest has some of the best scenery in America: Crater Lake, Yellowstone, Glacier National Park. If we could establish a base in the region, it would undoubtedly be a huge victory for us.

Therein lies the problem: the Northwest’s great advantage (its relative whiteness) is also its greatest disadvantage. Non-Whites are less numerous in the region. As a consequence, Whites in the area have less daily exposure to the horrors of diversity and are less racially conscious than their counterparts elsewhere. It is easy for Whites to ignore America’s racial decline and live a quiet life in Northwest suburbia. There is no material incentive to take the risk of joining a revolutionary organization like the Northwest Volunteer Army.

The people who “get it” in the Northwest – who are explicitly racial – are often migrants from other parts of the Union. Covington himself is from North Carolina. According to Leonard Zeskind, there are about 30,000 hardcore White Nationalists in America. If every single one of these people moved to the Northwest tomorrow, an extremely unlikely scenario, and united behind a single dynamic leader and common political platform, an even more unlikely scenario, they would be roughly the size of a small town. White Nationalists are not sufficiently cohesive or numerous to form a viable secessionist movement in Oregon, Idaho, and Washington.

Local resistance could prove an insurmountable problem. The Democrats have carried Washington and Oregon in every presidential election since 1988. Millions of White liberals live in the Vancouver-Seattle-Portland corridor. The coastal region of the Pacific Northwest is one of the most liberal regions of the United States. Obama won 70% of the vote in King County, Washington (Seattle) and 77% of the vote in Multnomah County, Oregon (Portland). I can’t envision a scenario in which diehard Obama voters would flock to the Northwest Front.

The Pacific Northwest doesn’t have a cultural, regional, or ethnic identity comparable to the American South. Whites in Seattle, Tacoma, and Portland don’t feel a sense of kinship with Whites in Boise, Couer d’Alene, and Helena. They didn’t flock to the side of Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Bob Mathews in his shootout in Whidbey Island, or Gordon Kahl in Montana. The Northwest might have a history of Aryan enclave radicalism, but it hasn’t penetrated the surrounding local culture. There isn’t a pre-existing cultural foundation for Whites to rally around.

This can be contrasted to the Antebellum South in the 1850s. Southerners were committed to the preservation of white supremacy. A broad consensus existed in the South that the Union was a compact of sovereign states. A revolutionary vanguard had worked for thirty years to sow the seeds of disunion in South Carolina. The planter class was committed to the preservation of their “domestic institution.” Slavery divided Americans along geographic lines. Secessionists held elected office in all the Southern states. Southerners were united by culture and kinship. Southerners, with their large non-White servile population, had many reasons to fear a “Black Republican” takeover of the federal government.

These vital ingredients are missing in the Pacific Northwest. The region isn’t Ireland, Ukraine, or the Confederacy. Perhaps a band of idealistic Aryan warriors could take up arms against the government and inspire the apathetic masses? The track record of White Nationalist groups like The Order or White Patriot Party doesn’t inspire confidence. The most likely outcome of a government crackdown on an underground vanguardist army would be White Nationalists turning on each and cooperating with the feds like what happened at the Fort Smith Trial.

To his credit, Harold Covington has stressed the importance of character. He is right to focus on this. You can’t build a sand castle with manure. White Nationalists don’t have a sufficient number of men of character to launch a successful secessionist movement anywhere in the United States. Only a fraction of the most diehard White Nationalists would be willing to uproot themselves and relocate to the Pacific Northwest with their families. Only a smaller fraction of them would be willing to risk life and limb for a White homeland.

The federal government is too powerful. I’m less inclined than ever before to believe the system will collapse in the near future. Some have claimed the feds are incompetent. I would argue that they have had a lot of success in penetrating the White Nationalist underground and disrupting our organizations from within. Bill White is going to prison merely for running his mouth. I don’t see anything like a sustained White Nationalist resistance to the federal government (crack one cell, another takes its place) emerging anytime soon.

In our own times, the Northwest Volunteer Army and Northwest Republic properly belong to the realm of fiction. If Covington is serious about this idea, he should focus his energies on practical achievable goals. It would be a huge step forward to get all the racialists who currently reside in the Northwest in regular communication with each other. To my knowledge, the Northwest Front hasn’t progressed that far yet. The next step would be holding state and regional meetings in the real world. The next step after that would be recruiting candidates for a new regional organization.

This organization could then do an exhaustive investigation of local racial attitudes and voting preferences. The Northwest Front could send out some professionally designed direct mail to targeted households sympathetic to traditional cultural values and anti-government rhetoric. It could design a political platform that appeals to a significant cross section of voters in the Northwest and start building a fundraising base. This makes more sense than lashing out at black helicopters with a bazooka. There are a number of steps that come before White Revolution.

I think a Northwest Homeland would be a much tougher mountain to climb than a Southern Homeland. It would be easier to create a base in states like Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina where the locals are already receptive to racialism and resent the federal government. The racial diversity of the Deep South provides more opportunity for confrontation and racial combustion. Southerners also have an ethnic identity to fall back on and a tradition of secession.

If Harold Covington is interested, this is a debate we should be having.

Occidental Dissent, March 8, 2010

Other Occidental Dissent articles on the same topic:

Gregory Hood, “What the ‘Old Man’ Gets Right — And Wrong,” March 8, 2010
Gregory Hood, “RE: Covington — An Apology,” March 8, 2010

As I have said repeatedly, the main reason people go to these conferences is for the networking, camaraderie, friendships, and behind the scenes action. I’m told some attendees have found mates there. The real conference takes place in the casual conversation that goes on in the breaks between speakers, at lunch, at the bar, at dinner, and after hours in the hotel rooms. The scheduled lineup of speakers is really just an excuse for geographically dispersed racialists to gather in a central location. It is a shame that Amren only puts on this show every two years.

We all know by now that public conferences have serious drawbacks. They attract anti-fascist scum who poison the environment and pressure hotels to cancel our reservations. Anyone can attend a public conference. This includes people who many of us would prefer to exclude. Antifa spies can attend, snap damaging photos, and use ritual shaming and guilt by association to damage the careers of high profile attendees. Lots of people don’t attend the public conferences for this reason. All of these factors combine to depress turnout.

A private conference has none of these disadvantages. The private model also retains the advantages that make a conference worth the expense of attending. If I were organizing a national conference, I wouldn’t even consider the public model. I would only invite people I know and trust and “known entities” who comrades can vouch for. The 2010 Amren conference was forced to adopt this model at the last minute. It is a superior model anyway, and I hope future conferences will be organized along these lines. Next time around this should be done well in advance.

The catch of the private model is getting new people involved in Amren and the broader White Advocacy movement. Lots of good people show up at the biannual public conferences who don’t have a record of previous involvement in the pro-White scene. They don’t know anyone. Quite often their racial views are still evolving. I have two friends who attended previous Amren conferences at this stage of their development. We need a new mechanism for getting newbies to the national conference while filtering out potential spies and saboteurs.

Local clubs are the solution to this problem. Ideally, we could create Amren clubs in every state of the union and the major metropolitan areas. These private clubs could host monthly events at local restaurants, state parks, or historical sites. There is an endless number of potential meeting places for this type of social networking. It is my understanding that the Chicago group has been doing this for years. New recruits could meet established racialists in their local area. These established racialists could then decide whether to recommend inviting them to the private national conference.

The networking, camaraderie, friendships, and behind the scenes action that go on at the biannual conference, which only lasts a few days a year, could potentially go on around the clock all year long. The only thing better than the biannual gathering is having racialist friends in your local area, on your college campus, or within driving distance. OD is taking its first steps in this direction with the Virginia Network. We already have a few local people who are interested in organizing a regional book club and touring the local historical sites. In particular, I can’t wait to get the time to hike the Blue Ridge Mountains and go kayaking in the spring.

I’m learning how to do online social networking with Pip Pockets. We’re gradually learning the basics of Twitter, Facebook, Digg, and YouTube. We plan to fully exploit all of these mediums to amplify our message and increase the size of the OD audience. We’re also going to take a hard look at podcasts. I’ve joked around several times now about adding a “Radio Free Virginia” section to OD after the site redesign. Jim Giles is correct when he says that radio and video are more powerful than the written word. Most Americans don’t have the patience to read more than a few lines of text. This limitation alone severely restricts the size of our potential audience.

Amren could profit by moving in this direction as well. They should have a daily updated WordPress blog and Facebook page. Twitter is still a mystery to me, but Stuff Black People Don’t Like is building a huge following there. I’m told that every journalist in America is on Twitter now. Young people love YouTube. There are all sorts of missed opportunities to exploit with video. All of these social networking mediums could be exploited to organize racialists into a web of real world state and regional groups. Personal interaction in the real world will drain a lot of the poisonous acrimony, conspiracy mongering, character assassination, fantasism, and backbiting that prevails in racialist circles on the internet.

Just some food for thought. If Jared Taylor plays his cards right, I think Amren could emerge from all this stronger and more influential than ever before.

Occidental Dissent, February 28, 2010

What does this say about Jeffrey Imm? Several things: he is a busybody who sticks his nose in the business of others, he hates the spirit of freedom, he wants to take away your constitutional rights, he is un-American, he is a fanatic who denies the humanity of people he disagrees with, and he is a self anointed commissar who wants to impose a political orthodoxy on freethinking Americans. Such an individual won’t stop with racialists. This can be established in a quick glance at his website. Red Jeffrey poses a threat to the free speech and freedom of association of the broader American Right.

Look at it this way: if the Constitutional Convention of 1787 could reassemble in Washington, DC, Jeffrey Imm would try to shut them down too. Every delegate to the Constitutional Convention was a White male with politically incorrect, racially insensitive views. Thomas Jefferson spent his entire life advocating the deportation of blacks to Africa. James Madison actually served as the President of the American Colonization Society. The freedom of White men to assemble and petition their government, which thousands fought and died for in the American Revolution, has never been challenged in the United States . . . until now.

Jeffrey Imm and his associates aren’t content to replace free speech with political orthodoxy. Although Imm denounces violence, the hotel that was hosting the AR Conference received violent threats, probably from the usual anarchist nutjobs. R.E.A.L. claims to stand for a free society, but there are people who share their political views who are willing to use force, communist ritual shaming, and old fashioned lynch mobs to attack and cower their opponents. I believe it was Huey Long who famously said that when fascism comes to America, it will come in the guise of anti-fascism.

Jeffrey Imm and his Gestapo must be stopped. We can contribute to that project by raising our voices even louder here. We need more media. If any of you have something to say about Jeffrey Imm and his thought police, write an article for OD and send it to me at prozium1984@gmail.com.

Occidental Dissent, February 16, 2010

Growing up in the 1990s, I found myself pondering all sorts of mysteries as a teenager: why did my black classmates consistently receive lower test scores; why were black students always in the lower track courses; why did people on television claim that blacks were as smart as Whites; why did blacks act in such a peculiar way; why were the smart White kids herded into the same schools with black thugs and drug dealers. I didn’t get it. Something didn’t feel right.

The inclusion of blacks at my school always bothered me. It struck me as an obstacle to my education. Blacks often assaulted the White kids in the school cafeteria. They sold drugs in school. They disrupted the classroom. They didn’t show any interest in their studies. Their sordid underclass culture rubbed off on the poorer Whites. My teachers were constantly forced to waste their time catering to the lowest common denominator. It was one long farce from kindergarten to graduation.

When I arrived at college, I was catapulted into a whole different world. Suddenly, there were lots of bright people around me with similar interests. A magic filter whisked away all the troublesome blacks who took up space in high school. In their place, I had an enormous college library to mine with thousands of books that interested me. I had a slew of courses that I could take to satisfy my intellectual curiosity. There was no comparison between my new segregated environment and my old integrated one.

I plunged in head first. When I emerged five years later, I was a different person. I had come to realize that my generation was the subject of a cruel liberal experiment in social engineering. In the name of “equality,” a small group of federal judges and ideologues had overthrown Alabama’s segregated school system and forced raw negroes into the White schools. This was done solely to uplift the negro, not to improve the White schools. Integration was based on the flawed premise that segregated schools were the cause of black academic underperformance.

Fifty years later, the segregationists have yet to be vindicated. The racial gap in average test scores failed to disappear in the integrated schools. It has stubbornly persisted into the Obama presidency. The traditional social problems of the black underclass (illegitimacy, vulgarity, drug abuse, violence, indolence, teen pregnancy) were imported into the White schools where they became a common problem. America’s public schools once inspired envy throughout the Western world. Thanks to our growing black and mestizo population, they now rank near the bottom.

The segregationists were right about other things. Theodore Bilbo had predicted that the end of segregation would unleash a tidal wave of black-on-white violent crime. Even Bilbo though couldn’t imagine that the day would come when negroes would rape over 35,000 white women per year in the United States. This was unknown in the Jim Crow South. Interracial crime is a one way street. Whites are overwhelmingly the victims of murders, thefts, rapes, and assaults by negroes, not the other way around. Even when blacks murder, rape, and steal from other blacks, White taxpayers incur the costs of their incarceration. This is another unsavory aspect of Martin Luther King’s so-called “dream” that is deliberately ignored in the mainstream.

Why do Whites accept inferior schools? Why do they endure unbearable levels of interracial violent crime? Why do they put up with racial discrimination in the form of affirmative action? Why do Whites accept an immigration policy which displaces them from their neighborhoods and reduces their political power? Why do Whites accept the redistribution of their wealth to non-Whites?

Let’s travel further in this vein: Why do Whites accept the degeneration of their culture? Why do Whites accept the spread of poverty, disease, filth, and ignorance in their midst? Why do Whites accept economic underdevelopment? Why do Whites accept the surrender of their culture and identity to placate hostile minorities? Why do Whites think their displacement in their native lands is a good thing? Why do Whites confuse decline with progress?

From a perspective of self interest, White racial suicide doesn’t make any sense. It becomes explicable though in the light of ideology and altruism. Our enemies have twisted Christianity and republicanism to justify our demise as a people. The intellectual fraud they have perpetrated doesn’t stand up to close historical scrutiny. The real impulse to annihilate Whites comes from outside both of these traditions.

Two centuries ago, Whites didn’t have these debates. Republicanism and Christianity flourished alongside a vigorous racial nationalism. Slavery was a contentious issue, but Whiteness itself wasn’t attacked by even the most radical egalitarians. No one believed that “liberty” and “equality” mandated or required the demographic submersion of America’s White majority. If a Christian minister or priest had invoked “love” to justify the racial displacement of his flock, they would have laughed him out of church. They probably would have tarred and feathered him to boot.

The attack on Whiteness began in the twentieth century. It came from three primary sources: Jewish academics, black intellectuals, and Marxists. More often that not, blacks and Jews mingled in the same radical fringe. It was an extremely secular milieu. Collectively, they dreamed of overthrowing the bourgeoisie republican order and replacing it with a classless Marxist utopia in which all racial and social distinctions would be abolished.

The Soviet Union was the first European nation to permanently incorporate this revolutionary ideal into law. In the 1920s, the USSR became a mecca for radical black intellectuals alienated from America. In the United States, the Communist Party USA was the only political party that fully championed the colorblind ideal that gradually triumphed after the Second World War. It was instructed to unfurl the banner of racial equality by the Comintern. Within the CPUSA, the Moscow party line was controversial, as it tended to alienate White working class voters.

This is a rich story that no one has completely told. The term “racism” made its debut on the Marxist fringe in the 1920s, entered American public discourse in the 1930s, and penetrated the mainstream in the 1940s. The Civil Rights Movement had close ties to communism in its earliest years. The U.S. dismantled Jim Crow largely because of the appeal of communism in the Third World. The ruling class neutralized the racial threat of Soviet communism (the possibility of a black fifth column) by mainstreaming the Soviet racial ideal here in America.

The spearhead of anti-racism hasn’t changed in our own times. It is still composed of Jewish academics, black intellectuals, and Marxists. The common thread uniting them is communism, atheism, and hatred of Whites. They have since moved on to creating a new radical discourse about “white privilege” and new forms of subversion like “critical race theory.” These ideals are then smuggled into the mainstream through left-wing front groups as the newest form of Christianity and republicanism.

This is where Comrade Jeffrey enters the picture. His apparent role is to put words into the mouth of Jesus Christ or Thomas Jefferson that were never spoken. The true progenitors of his ideal can trace their footsteps back to Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. He doesn’t want you to find that out though.

Occidental Dissent, February 3, 2010

Here’s my own two cents:

1. There are White Nationalists who can be clinically diagnosed as psychopaths. They openly proclaim their intention to exterminate the Jews. Unlike Guy White, I am not convinced a majority of White Nationalists (or even a significant minority) share this point of view. In 9 out of 10 cases, it is mere saber rattling and more-radical-than-thou rhetorical posturing. If these people were truly genocidal, they would have the courage to carry out their convictions.

2. It is equally true that a significant number of Jews are batshit crazy. They are unreachable. These people are driven by an animus against Whites and intend to do us harm. Unlike the WNs, these people often have the wealth, power, or influence to act on their resentments. The death of Howard Zinn a few days ago was a small reminder that such malicious Jews (individual fire starters) are out there.

3. Yes, it is true that anti-Semites often say stupid things on the internet. I cited that in my first post as one of the reasons why I started this website. There is a world of difference though between powerless commentators on obscure blogs and the harm done to Whites by Jewish organizations like the ADL, AJC, or HIAS who have the ear of Congress and the President of the United States.

4. There is no valid comparison between radical anti-Semites on fringe right-wing websites and the Jewish political pundits and commentators that dominate mainstream American public discourse. You can’t compare a David Brooks, Paul Krugman, or Jeffrey Goldberg to a WhitePrideWorldWide or HeilHitler 14/88 on VNN Forum.

5. I’m a reasonable man. If Jews changed their behavior, I wouldn’t have a problem with them. I don’t write about Eskimos because they mind their own business and have never attempted to “transform” the culture and racial attitudes of White Americans. We don’t write about the Amish, Navajo, Shakers, Sioux or countless other American minority groups for the same reason.

6. Jews are resented because of their actions. Over the past two months, I have monitored them on this website. We’ve seen Jews try to manhandle the Pope, censor racialists at C-SPAN, push Obamacare through Congress, poison German youth with hip hop music, align with Hispanics to push “comprehensive immigration reform,” peddle anti-racist intrepretations of American history, demonize Whites on MLK day, demonize Sarah Palin, censor comments at The Huff Post, open our borders to a tidal wave of Haitian immigrants, etc.

7. I totally reject the victimization theory. Jews have never been victimized in the United States. I can’t think of a single anti-Jewish federal, state, or local law ever passed in America since the ratification of the Constitution. In theory, we shouldn’t have a Jewish problem. Jews were welcomed to America with open arms and have been wildly successful here. They have absolutely no valid reason to hate this country or wish to displace its people. Yet we still have Jews like Howard Zinn.

8. White Nationalism emerged in the mid-1970s in reaction to the demise of the Jim Crow South. Historically speaking, American racialism hasn’t been anti-Semitic. That changed in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement when the extent of Jewish involvement in pushing anti-racism and integration became unmistakably clear.

9. White Americans are the victims, not Jews. Thousands of Americans lost their lives in the Second World War fighting Hitler’s armies. White Americans liberated the Jews from the Third Reich.

How did they repay us? By marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma with MLK, redefining America as a “nation of immigrants,” fomenting Communism, destroying racial theory, opening our borders to a tidal wave of Third World immigration, demonizing White racial consciousness, and so on. We’ve given Israel literally billions of dollars in tribute.

In return for what? Nothing but hatred and contempt for “White racism.” Ever more obscene and radical demands to purge our heritage of anything that smacks of whiteness. American Jews are the most ungrateful people who have ever lived. They have made themselves at home in our house, a nation created by Whites for Whites, and libel us as moral lepers!

10. Why on Earth should White Nationalists like the Jews? No people in the world have done us more harm or loathe us with more malice. This was the case even before White Nationalism existed. Irrational WNs blame the Jews for everything that is wrong with America because of the Jewish omnipresence in almost every degenerate cultural trend.

The worst Jews can say about White Nationalists is that they have been the victims of some unkind comments by anonymous posters on the internet. That is nothing compared to the real harm that Jews inflict upon Whites on a daily basis which we are chronicling here.

Antisemitica, February 2, 2010

Volume II: Secessionists Triumphant, 1854-1861

In his second volume of The Road to Disunion, William W. Freehling explores the climax of the secessionist movement in the American South. Secessionists Triumphant, 1854-1861 takes the reader from the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which reignited anti-slavery controversy in the territories, to the opening shots of the War Between the States at Fort Sumter. Long a thwarted minority, secessionists emerged from the political wilderness in these years and fatefully tore the White Republic asunder.

White Nationalists will be surprised to learn that Freehling’s revisionist interpretation of secession challenges the conventional wisdom on the topic. Every American teenager is taught in high school that Southerners stormed out of the Union over their failure to expand slavery in the territories. The Republican Party would have carved out new free states in the West. Eventually, free soilers would have achieved the necessary 3/4th majority to abolish slavery in the South. Thus, Southerners had no choice but to secede and form their own independent nation, as slavery was doomed within the Union.

Freehling uses multiple lines of evidence to undermine this argument. He points out that the most important secessionists, the South Carolina hotspurs, were the least enthusiastic about national expansion. Their champion John C. Calhoun had warned that the Mexican Cession would poison the Union. Likewise, the most important expansionists, the New Orleans imperialists, were among the strongest unionists. South Carolina had wanted to secede from the Union since 1850 and was deterred only because no other state would follow. The Kansas controversy that ensued in the mid-1850s didn’t precipitate the crisis. In the hearts and minds of South Carolinians, the fateful decision for disunion had been made long ago.

Far from being a beleagured minority, the Slave Power had been chalking up one victory after another, and making ever more extreme demands on their Northern colleagues. Texas was annexed to the Union in 1846. The Far Southwest was acquired in the Mexican Cession. The Wilmot Proviso was repeatedly defeated. In the Compromise of 1850, slaveholders had won a new fugitive slave law. The Whig Party was tried and convicted of treason to slavery in the Lower South. In the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Missouri Compromise was repealed and all the territories were flung open to slavery. In the Dred Scott decision, Congress was stripped of its power to abolish slavery in the territories and free blacks lost their citizenship. Finally, Stephen Douglas defeated Abraham Lincoln in an 1858 Illinois Senate race. The Republican Party grew only because of the seemingly insatiable demands of slaveholders who had never been more powerful.

The Western territories which allegedly were the cause of disunion were largely unsuited for plantation agriculture. Slavery wasn’t about to establish itself in New Mexico, Utah, or Nebraska. This was no real loss: planters had an overabundance of land in more tropical Arkansas and Texas waiting to be exploited. Free states like California and Oregon also usually voted with the South in Congress. In Kansas, a mere 200 slaves were imported into the territory. Southerners knew the North would settle the region with their far larger population. Even if Kansas had been admitted as a slave state under the Lecompton constitution, it wouldn’t have remained one a dozen years later.

Under close examination, disunion seems even more bizarre. Southerners were outraged at Northerners who wanted to ban slavery in the territories, but in seceding from the Union they renounced their claim to all the territories. Southerners worried about the erosion of slavery in the Border South, but in seceding from the Union they abolished slavery in the region. Southerners were worried that non-slaveholders would flock to a Southern Republican Party, but secession divided Virginia and produced thousands of anti-Confederates in East Tennessee, North Alabama, and Western North Carolina. Southerners worried about servile insurrection, but nothing was more likely to produce that result than a Civil War!

The ”Black Republican” threat was vastly exaggerated. Only 2% of Northerners wanted to abolish slavery where it already existed. The Republicans only wished to ban slavery in places it could never take root. They had lost on that point in the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Dred Scott decision. In 1860/1861, the Republicans were willing to pass an irrevocable constitutional amendment that would have legalized slavery forever in the Southern states, including the Border South where it was imperiled. Abraham Lincoln even conceded that he wouldn’t use patronage to create a Southern Republican Party in the Lower South.

Lincoln’s election, the proximate cause of disunion, was desired by secessionists like William Lowndes Yancey and Robert Barnwell Rhett. Yancey deliberately used an abstract debate over a congressional slave code to divide the Democratic Party, defeat Stephen Douglas’ candidacy, and ensure a Lincoln victory. This outrage could then be exploited to drive a handful of the most radical states out the Union. The more reluctant Gulf States would then be forced to secede with their brethren. If Lincoln chose to coerce a seceded state, this would force Upper South (and hopefully the Border South) into a Southern Confederacy.

It boggles the mind: secessionists diligently went to work destroying their national political party through which they had lately controlled the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court. If the Democrats had united behind Douglas, they could have defeated the Republicans in 1860. If slaveholders had conceded inhospitable and unwinnable territories within the Union, as they did by leaving the Union, the Republican Party would have faded. Slavery would have been ensconced in an impregnable constitutional fortress. There is no telling when it may have ultimately been abolished.

The revolution the secessionists incited thrust men into power who had not championed disunion. Jefferson Davis, Confederate President, had been a Washington insider and favorite of James Buchanan. He had opposed secession until 1860. Alexander Stephens, Confederate Vice President, opposed Georgia’s secession from the Union. Robert Toombs, Confederate Secretary of State, was a unionist who opposed Georgia secession in 1850. Christopher Memminger, Confederate Treasury Secretary, had been a Cooperationist. The Confederate government was stacked with other late comers. Noticeably absent were the Fire Eaters (Robert Barnwell Rhett and William Lowndes Yancey) who prodded the South to disunion.

These men exploited several issues to drive a wedge between North and South. Robert Barnwell Rhett hoped the Republicans would revisit the issue of abolishing slavery in Washington, DC. Maybe that could be used to dissolve the Union. Yancey argued for reopening the African slave trade in the hope that it would alienate Northern Democrats. Kansas and Caribbean expansion were also seen as useful devices for justifying disunion. Ultimately, the congressional slave code with the abstract “when necessary” language proved the most lethal and effective weapon.

South Carolina set the chain of dominos in motion. There haughty lowcountry aristocrats had long despised American mobocracy and yearned for deliverance. Touchy Southwesterners in Alabama and Mississippi could not tolerate the dishonor of being morally stigmatized or excluded from any territory. They could also not tolerate the decision of the Buchanan administration to coerce South Carolina by sending the Star of the West to resupply Fort Sumter. Florida and Georgia followed their neighbors. Louisiana and Texas cast their lot with their sister states.

The Upper South decisively rejected secession until Lincoln decided to coerce the Confederacy. The Whites in these states felt South Carolinians had been foolish and unwise, but did not contest their right to secede. Lincoln’s violation of states’ rights took Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee out of the Union. In the Border South, 1/3 of Whites sided with the Confederacy; 2/3 with the Union. Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland degenerated into civil war.

William W. Freehling searched in vain for a rational explanation for disunion. Wasn’t there an “irrepressible conflict” between the Free States and Slave States? His research uncovered an untidy variety of causes as divergent as the various subregions of the South. Some Southerners were swept along by the excitement and momentum of events beyond their control. Some felt they were being treated as less than equals. Some despised Yankee holier-than-thous. Some felt that slavery would be safer in a Southern Confederacy. Some believed that Northern protectionists were fleecing them with high tariffs. Some would side with their own misguided kin. Some did not believe the federal government could coerce a seceded state. Most subscribed to some combination of these grievances.

It is worth noting that the demise of the White Republic was a self inflicted blow on American civilization. Northerners and Southerners heaped up their own funeral pyre over insoluble sectional differences. Jews did not play an important role in the final unraveling. The reconstructed nation that emerged from the carnage would elevate Negroes to civil and political equality. A few years earlier, this had been an unthinkable scenario except in the minds of the wildest fanatics like John Brown. If there is any useful lesson that White Nationalists can draw from this, it is that White fratricide always works to the advantage of our racial enemies.

Occidental Dissent, January 29, 2010

It’s official

Ron Unz, the Jewish owner of the American Conservative, has become a mestizo apologist.

American Conservative now reads like the neocon Weekly Standard in support of open borders

This is not surprising, considering:

Buchanan and Taki no longer have anything to do at all with the American Conservative

Ron Unz opposed Prop. 187 in California (a 1994 ballot initiative designed to prohibit illegal immigrants from using social services)

A link was provided to a new article by Ron Unz, the Jewish owner of The American Conservative, called “His-Panic: The Myth of Immigrant Crime.” Razib Khan of Gene Expression assisted Unz with the technical data. After visiting the site, I noticed that it is the cover story of the March issue. Personally, I’ve never written a single word about Hispanic crime at this website. VDARE and Amren have addressed the issue and should respond to Unz in some fashion.

In addition to “His-Panic,” there is another headline article called “Open Arms, Open Doors” from The Washington Post that argues U.S. immigration policy is killing Haitians and that the best way to help them is to let millions of starving refugees flood into the United States. What’s that doing in a paleoconservative magazine? Some of you might recall that last month Unz published Peter Hitchen’s “Far Wrong” hit piece on the BNP. You don’t need a crystal ball to see where this is going.

The choice of “His-Panic” as the title of the headline article in the new TAC is revealing. Geraldo Rivera (the Jewish/Puerto Rican liberal journalist) has a book called His-Panic: Why Americans Fear Hispanics in the U.S. I knew the term sounded familar. I want to say that the neocon Linda Chavez has also written something under that label.

After hearing this, I think most White Nationalists will have the same reaction. A cardinal belief of White Nationalism is that Jews control the media and that their collective influence has pushed America in a more liberal, anti-racist direction. An important corollary is that Jews should be totally excluded from our media and organizations. This is why Amren’s inclusion of Jews has stirred so much controversy within the racialist community.

As The American Conservative goes the way of National Review, a few chastened paleos might learn something from this experience. Even if you disagree with White Nationalism, you can’t build viable conservative institutions with Jews in leading positions of influence. It never pans out. The idea that Jews could be relied upon to restore a healthy White Christian America was always absurd.

Unfortunately, I doubt this episode will put an end to that fanciful notion on the Alternative Right.

Occidental Dissent, January 26, 2010