So many negative consequences arose from the Civil Rights Movement that the Democratic Party won few subsequent elections. Its reputation as the anti-white party that idealized black criminals and sought America’s destruction was only briefly overcome when it nominated southerners like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.[81] America’s Jewish Establishment, now thoroughly coordinated by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, recognized, however, that the country’s complete destruction would prevent its defense of Israel.

To conserve America as a viable host, neo-conservatism was created in the pages of Commentary, an official publication of the American Jewish Committee, whose editor Norman Podhoretz mixed predictable Frankfurt School ideology with laissez-faire economics, bellicose advocacy of Israel, and devaluation of nature through anti-environmentalism, his other innovation.[82]

The nascent neo-conservative movement’s first significant candidate was Ronald Reagan, who had been front man for the successful efforts of Hollywood’s two most powerful Jews, super mogul Lew Wasserman and super mobster Sidney Korshak, to control organized labor in the film industry.[83] Reagan soon became the perfect American president for the Jewish Establishment, since he opened the borders, increasing Mexican immigration by 54 percent,[84] broke labor unions, and freed corporations from government oversight and regulation. Consequently income inequality began to rise for the first time since the New Deal, eventually reaching levels unseen since the Gilded Age, creating a new era of excess that lacked the previous one’s mitigating good taste.[85]

A defining feature of Reagan’s new economy was the replacement of manufacturing with financialization.[86] Instead of a broad-based industrial economy benefiting the many Americans who once made things the world needed, a far narrower group was now enriched by financial control of the world’s economy through multinational corporations and other vehicles that, though often based in the United States, had little affinity with or allegiance to its people.

Since financialization involves symbol manipulation, at which Jews excel, they were its disproportionate beneficiaries. Names like like Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken, Andrew Fastow, and Jack Abramoff became notorious despite less attention to their ethnicity than the Jewish Establishment expected.[87] These Luftmenschen, those who create money out of air—the stuff that inflates bubbles, before they pop—are a phenomenon with a long history in the Jewish community.[88]

Their exploits paled before what was to come, however. In 2008 the financialized American economy was exposed to all as a gigantic Ponzi scheme that sucked money out of the world economy by selling subprime mortgage-based securities until their worthlessness was exposed.

Like all such pyramid schemes, more and more bodies were needed to postpone inevitable collapse. The marginally employed blacks and Hispanics of America’s crime-ridden ghettoes provided them, and the American Dream Downpayment Act and similar measures facilitated their movement into new homes. Suburban sprawl continued destroying the biologically rich landscapes of Florida, Arizona, and California until it could no longer be sustained. By 2006 it became evident that something had gone terribly wrong. Stores surrounded by expensive new homes needed security guards to prevent constant vandalism, a ghetto-bred habit of newly-minted suburbanites. Now those homes are empty, vandalized, and foreclosed.

None of this was seen or anticipated by investors around the world who once trusted securities backed by American mortgages. As a consequence the world economy faces its worst crisis since the great depression.[89] Before the full dimensions of the crisis were apparent, Alan Greenspan, America’s Federal Reserve chairman from 1987 to 2006, published a memoir celebrating both his Jewish roots and his responsibility for policies that caused the crisis. In Greenspan’s words:

The gains were especially significant among Hispanics and blacks, as increasing affluence as well as government encouragement of subprime mortgage programs enabled many members of minority groups to become first-time home buyers. The expansion of home ownership gave more people a stake in the future of our country and boded well for the cohesion of the nation, I thought. . . . I was aware that the loosening of mortgage credit terms for subprime borrowers increased financial risk, and that subsidized home ownership initiatives distort market outcomes. But I believed then, as now, that the benefits of broadened home ownership are worth the risk. Protection of property rights, so critical to a market economy, requires a critical mass of owners to sustain political support.[90]

Greenspan undoubtedly didn’t intend to create the financial black hole now sucking the world economy dry, but he was the primary architect of the hyper-financialization that made it possible.[91] His willful blindness to the impact of race on economics shows he learned no lessons from bad loans to African and other Third World countries that weakened America’s banks and left them vulnerable to the financial crisis of 1990, which contributed to George H. W. Bush’s defeat in 1992.[92] Bush’s son, who learned nothing either, went on to preside over a far worse economic meltdown.[93]

The Scots-Irish are finally united behind the Republican Party as they haven’t been with any party since before the Civil War, but it has done them no good. They’ve become increasingly impoverished relative to other groups under the Republicans,[94] and even when southern Democrats like Bill Clinton won elections, the financialized economic policy begun by Reagan and fully implemented by Greenspan changed little.[95] Their chief function now is cannon fodder in wars for Israel, which George W. Bush, a servile supporter of the Jewish Establishment despite his studied Scots-Irish manner, fully implemented in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq. John Hagee and other Christian Zionists even pervert their traditional Protestantism into literal worship of Jews resembling cargo cults of primitive people that sacralize their rulers’ culture and anticipate the world’s end.[96]

The Jewish Establishment’s total control of both major American parties by 2008 was evident in their servile fidelity to its core values of unlimited non-white immigration and wars for Israel. The establishment’s wide geographic dispersal, affluence, and tight focus on collective interests enabled it to dominate campaign finance throughout the country.[97] Consequently the 2008 presidential campaign was a caricature of both parties’ worst features symbolized by the dance between them by Senator Joseph Lieberman, who represents the establishment far more reliably than Connecticut. Lieberman, the Democrats’ vice-presidential candidate in 2000, campaigned for the Republicans in 2008 but was welcomed back by the Democrats following the election.

The ethnicity of the John McCain-Sarah Palin Republican ticket appealed to America’s Scots-Irish and southern English, but their campaign’s focus on fighting for Israel became so comically slavish it was eventually lampooned on television’s Saturday Night Live. In contrast, much of the initial appeal of Barack Obama to many Democrats, despite the slimmest of resumes, was a family background almost caricaturing rootless cosmopolitanism: Obama’s mother, a Kansas girl, sought out first a Kenyan and then an Indonesian to father her children.[98] Obama eventually sought roots his mother failed to provide in Chicago’s black community and proved to be a smart campaigner. He defeated John McCain, who was only able to carry Scots-Irish, southern white, and some German-American regions. Obama won everywhere else. The future course of his presidency is still unknown, but a hint came when his first significant appointment, that of his chief of staff, was the powerful Israeli-American congressman Rahm Emanuel.[99]

The End of Jewish Hegemony

It is evident that the Jewish hegemony has two pillars. One is the destruction of the ethnic consciousness and demographic viability of America’s white majority. The other is unconditional support for extreme ethnonationalism among the Jewish majority in Israel, a Herrenvolk democracy attaching no value to the rights and lives of Palestinians under its control.[100] In simple terms, it is for minorities and against the majority where it’s a permanent minority, and the reverse where it can be a majority. This seeming paradox is no contradiction for the current establishment. It is simply the current version of their traditional litmus test: is it good for the Jews?[101] In this case, however, what is good for the Jews threatens the welfare and very existence of America’s people in general and its white majority in particular.

Rule of large nations by small ethnic groups is unsustainable and must eventually end, but that can take a long time. Manchus ruled China for 250 years until they were essentially absorbed and nearly extinct by the time they were overthrown in the nationalist revolution of 1911.[102] The vast demographic strength of the Chinese permitted them to readily outlast the Manchus, but white America, a valuable and distinctive part of earth’s human biodiversity, lacks that advantage.[103] Its population share of the nation it founded has fallen from 83 percent to 69 percent in just 20 years, a spiral of demographic disaster that continues to accelerate.[104] Such reduction of an ethnic group’s population resulting from overt acts by a hegemonic group constitutes genocide and must be stopped by any means necessary.

White survival requires a movement of national liberation that must begin now. It can come by force of arms, like Hezbollah’s liberation of Lebanon from the Israelis, or peacefully, like Gandhi’s defeat of the British Raj,[105] but it must come. Demonization of those fighting oppression indicates their effectiveness and is cause for honor rather than reproach.[106] Victory in this struggle may seem impossible now, but surprise is history’s nature. Help may even come from surprising places. Both Jewish[107] and gentile[108] authors discuss the phenomenon of Jewish revolutionary spirit, which helped create Establishment hegemony. It threatens established orders, but recent works by Jewish authors like Finkelstein[109] and Shamir[110] suggest that may include the present one.

Most importantly, white America must gain a sense of collective identity to survive. Otherwise it is just an unorganized mob of individuals vulnerable to any group like the current Establishment that has such an identity. American whites once had such identity in embryonic form, but that was weakened by regional divisions and finally destroyed by Frankfurt School propaganda in the 1960s. Even that identity was a folk development never supported by Anglo-American academic political philosophy, which was dominated by the Anglo-French Enlightenment and consequently universalist rather than particularist.[111]

Universalism permitted just two alternatives: world humanity consisting of either isolated individuals or a collective mass. So-called conservatives of the right favored the former and so-called liberals of the left favored the latter, but neither left room for ethnic identity. Alternatives celebrating particularity did develop in Europe to the east of France in reaction to Napoleon’s attempt to spread the Enlightenment by force, but their particularity focused on relatively recent epiphenomena of language and religion tending to divide Europeans rather than the biological fundamentals uniting them.[112] That philosophical turn, proscribed after 1945 for being on the losing side of the Second World War, is now reemerging in Europe as an antidote to the malaise of globalism.[113]

Some see this as a model for America, but there are problems despite much of value. The European new right tends to be hierarchical, anti-modern, anti-rationalist, and non-biological at a time when these would be fatal to white Americans. An acceptance of hierarchy[114] is the last message needed by white Americans crushed beneath a hostile hegemony’s iron heel, especially since proto-neo-conservative Leo Strauss used similar arguments to justify hegemony.[115] The new right’s anti-modern, anti-rationalist, and non-biological tendencies are equally problematic, since they reject not only modernity’s universalism but also the ultimate achievement of white European culture, modern science.

C. P. Snow identified these two sides of modernity in his Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution,[116] but for too long the universalistic one has dominated academia and public affairs.[117] That began to change when E. O. Wilson’s Sociobiology demonstrated clearly that humans are not exempt from the great advances being made in evolutionary biology and ecology.[118] In this model there are no longer biological universals, and therefore no human ones as well. Everything is particular, from the earth’s infinitely variable environments to its equally diverse biological groups, including human groups. In such groups individuals are important, but their well-being ultimately depends on that of their group and the barriers protecting its integrity.[119] Wilson subsequently called for respecting the full measure of earth’s biodiversity as God’s Creation, a model embracing rather than excluding religion.[120]

* * *

Architectural critic Charles Jencks dates the end of the modern age to 3:32 PM on July 15, 1972, when the Pruitt-Igoe housing project in St. Louis was deliberately dynamited because its black tenants had rendered it uninhabitable after just 17 years.[121] Its architectural award-winning high rises surrounded by gardens were similar to designs that helped Europeans reduce their human footprint, but they didn’t work for another race. Modernity is ultimately European culture, which other races often rightly reject and resist. Its zenith was 1969, when Neal Armstrong walked on the moon. White Americans still believed then that modernity could embrace and improve the lives of all human populations.[122] So 1972 is as good a date as any for when they lost that hope. Political philosophy fails to explain the subsequent postmodern age’s pervasive confusion. Only renewed appreciation of our planet’s great biodiversity, including human biodiversity, can do that. To paraphrase Patrick Henry: “If this be racism, make the most of it.”

Part 4 of 4

____________________________________________________________________

[81] Thomas Edsall and Mary Edsall, Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics (New York: Norton, 1991); Matthew Lassiter, The Silent Majority: Suburban Politics in the Sunbelt South (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006).

[82] Gary Dorrien, The Neo-Conservative Mind: Politics, Culture, and the War of Ideology (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1993).

[83] Connie Bruck, When Hollywood had a King: The Reign of Lew Wasserman, who Leveraged Talent into Power and Influence (New York: Random House, 2003); Gus Russo, Supermob: How Sidney Korshak and His Criminal Associates Became America’s Hidden Power Brokers (New York: Bloomsbury, 2006)

[84] World Almanac, The World Almanac and Book of Facts (Mahwah, N.J.: World Almanac Books, 2001).

[85] Philips, Wealth and Democracy; Reich, Supercapitalism.

[86] Phillips American Theocracy.

[87] Sachar, A History of the Jews in America; Frank Partnoy, Infectious Greed: How Deceit and Risk Corrupted the Financial Markets (New York: Times Books, 2003); Lou Dubose and Jan Reid, The Hammer: Tom Delay; God, Money, and the Rise of the Republican Congress (New York: Public Affairs, 2004).

[88] Nathan Ausubel, Pictorial History of the Jewish People: From Bible Times to Our Own Day throughout the World (New York: Crown, 1953).

[89] Kevin Philips, Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism (New York: Viking, 2008); Mark Zandi, Financial Shock: A 360 degree Look at the Subprime Mortgage Implosion and How to Avoid the Next Financial Crisis (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: F. T. Press, 2009).

[90] Alan Greenspan, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World (New York: Penguin, 2007).

[91] Phillips American Theocracy.

[92] Steven Beckner, Back from the Brink: The Greenspan Years (New York: Wiley, 1996); Roy Smith, Comeback: The Restoration of American Banking Power in the New World Economy (Cambridge: Harvard Business School, 1993); Phillip Zweig, Wriston: Walter Wriston, Citibank, and the Rise and Fall of American Financial Supremacy (New York: Crown, 1995).

[93] Zandi, Financial Shock.

[94] Thomas Frank, What’s the Matter with Kansas: How Conservatives won the Heart of America (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004).

[95] Philips, Wealth and Democracy; American Theocracy.

[96] Phillips American Theocracy; Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby; Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal; Jonathan Smith and William Green, eds., The Harper Collins Dictionary of Religion (New York: Harper Collins, 1995).

[97] Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby.

[98] Franklin Foer, Election 2008: A Voter’s Guide (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007); Shelby Steele, A Bound Man: Why We are Excited about Barack Obama and Why He Can’t Win (New York: The Free Press, 2008).

[99] Michael Barone and Richard Cohen, The Almanac of American Politics: 2008 (Washington, D.C.: National Journal, 2007).

[100] Jimmy Carter, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006).

[101] Elliot Rosenberg, But Were They Good for the Jews: Over 150 Historical Figures Viewed from a Jewish Perspective (Secaucus, N.J.: Birch Lane Press, 1997).

[102] Jonathan Spence, The Search for Modern China (New York: Norton, 1990).

[103] George McDaniel, ed., A Race against Time (Oakton, Va.: New Century Books, 2003).

[104] Barone and Cohen, The Almanac of American Politics: 2008; World Almanac 2001.

[105] Shamir, Masters of Discourse (Tel Aviv: Surge Books 2008).

[106] Douglas Rose, ed., The Emergence of David Duke and the Politics of Race (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992).

[107] Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, Jews, Christians, and the New Left (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982).

[108] E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend, Ind.: Fidelity Press, 2008).

[109] Norman Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005).

[110] Shamir, Masters of Discourse.

[111] Frederickson, Racism.

[112] George Mosse, The Culture of Western Europe (New York: Rand McNally, 1961); Oppenheimer, The Real Eve.

[113] Michael O’Meara, New Culture, New Right: Anti-liberalism in Postmodern Europe (Bloomington, Ind.: 1st Books, 2004).

[114] Tomislav Sunic, Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right (Newport Beach, Cal.: The Noontide Press, 2004).

[115] Ted McAllister, Revolt Against Modernity: Leo Strauss, Eric Voegelin, and the Search for a Postliberal Order (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1996).

[116] C. P. Snow, The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1962).

[117] Gross and Levitt, Higher Superstition.

[118] Edward O. Wilson, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 1975).

[119] Rhymer and Simberloff, “Extinction by Hybridization and Introgression.”

[120] Edward O. Wilson, The Future of Life (New York: Knopf, 2002) and The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth (New York: Norton, 2006).

[121] David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989).

[122] Fred Siegel, The Future Once Happened Here: New York, D.C., L.A., and the Fate of America’s Big Cities (New York: The Free Press, 1997).

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

Political correctness does not just infect the United States. It affects our entire Western family.  An extreme, though revealing story out of New Zealand today: Two friends, a white man and a black man, saw some immigration officers outside their office. The white man jokingly said to his friend, “You’d better hide.” A trifle indelicate perhaps, but like most normal people, the black guy didn’t care and interpreted this as a joke. Both men probably thought nothing of it.

However, one of those insufferable busybodies that constantly feel the need to police our words and thoughts reported this deeply serious matter to company higher-ups. Such is the world we live in that the white man was immediately suspended from his job. Devastated, Roy Amor, 61 years old, shot himself.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10637874

Who benefits from this system? Certainly, not the family of Mr. Amor, who leaves behind a wife and his grown-up son and daughter. Certainly, not the unidentified black man, who didn’t care about the joke, attended Mr. Amor’s funeral, and lost a friend. Certainly, not the company, which lost a good worker by all accounts and clearly someone who valued his job and held it to be an important part of his life. Has racial justice somehow been advanced by this incident? Is New Zealand somehow a better country because a this man was driven to such despair that he took his own life? Does anyone touched by this incident feel that political correctness somehow has made their country a better place?

Mr. Amor’s reaction was certainly extreme, and we have no way of knowing if there were other things in his life that drove him to take this terrible step. That said, it may have been sufficient in itself. The accusation of racism is the most serious charge that can be made in the Western world today. If you are a murderer, you will find plenty of people to explain away your conduct as the fault of society. They might even make a movie about you. Druggies and degenerates of all sorts are held either as innocent victims or perhaps even heroes, bravely transcending reactionary social norms. In the post-Christian West, where values are deconstructed with ease and all morality is held to be relative, racism is the only absolute sin and manifestation of true evil in the world. The ethnocentric white man takes over the position of Old Scratch.

Your friends and family can excuse any failing or misdeed, with that one terrible exception of racism. Regardless of the truth or falsity of the accusation, regardless of Mr. Amor’s probable protestations that it was just a joke, regardless that the “target” of the insensitive joke didn’t care, we can expect that Mr. Amor’s friends suddenly didn’t want to be associated with him, that colleagues didn’t return phone calls, that supervisors who valued his work suddenly regarded him as a liability. People who would have stood by him had he been drunk driving or addicted to heroin may have cut him off once the accusation of thoughtcrime was made, either out of self-righteousness or fear for their own careers. We don’t know all the reasons he did it, probably no one does except Mr. Amor himself. However, I am willing to bet that when Mr. Amor pulled the trigger, more than anything else, he must have felt totally abandoned and alone.

I extend my heartfelt sympathies to Mr. Amor and his family and friends. I hope whoever reported that joke feels the tortures of the damned for the rest of their miserable lives. Why do we fight? Because a society that accepts this is fundamentally sick and should not be tolerated. We are going to change this world so that we never have to see horrifying stories like this ever again.

Youth for Western Civilization, April 12, 2010]]> http://www.toqonline.com/blog/man-commits-suicide-over-racism-accusation/feed/ 27 http://www.toqonline.com/blog/virginia-bob-mcdonnell-confederate-history-month/ http://www.toqonline.com/blog/virginia-bob-mcdonnell-confederate-history-month/#comments Fri, 09 Apr 2010 08:51:46 +0000 Hunter Wallace http://www.toqonline.com/?p=9169 Bob McDonnell, Governor of Virginia, has stirred up a national controversy by having the audacity to declare the month of April “Confederate History Month” in the Old Dominion. Jews, White liberals, parasites, and negroes across America quickly began to shriek in horror about the Confederacy’s horrible legacy of racism and slavery. As everyone knows by now, McDonnell folded under pressure and issued a wimpy apology in which he decried slavery as the cause of the War Between the States.

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 “Teabaggers vs. Immigration Rally: A Tale of Two Americas” — huffingtonpost.com, Miguel Guadalupe writes:

At the immigration rally, you saw a wide spectrum of races and ethnicities. Those attending were mostly Latino, but the rally also welcomed the participation of Whites, Asians, and Blacks who support a path to citizenship, reuniting families, and providing opportunities to students and veterans.

At the Teabagger rally, the monochromatic masses were spitting and yelling racial and homophobic slurs at Black, Latino, and openly gay congressional reps.

At the immigrations rally, the participants were expressing hope – hope that reform would reunite them with their families. Hope that they would be given the opportunity to fully contribute to society, and the hope that their sacrifices, including the sacrifices of those who have served in the military or have lost their lives defending this country, will not be in vain.

At the Teabagger rally, the participants were expressing fear – fear of a socialist nation, fear of some type of take over of individual rights, fear of some conspiracy involving the democratically elected President and a democratically elected representative majority. They punctuated their expression of fear with threats of violence.

I highlight these opposing images because soon enough, these two groups will collide. The national debate on immigration reform will come soon, and if the Teabaggers act as they have against health care reform, we can expect more vitriol, fear mongering, harassment and acts of violence. These so-called “Americans” will feel even less restrained against people they consider to be “foreign” or “illegal,” deserving even less respect than they gave to our elected officials.

In “Whose Country Is It?” — NYTimes.com, Charles Blow writes:

The far-right extremists have gone into conniptions.

The bullying, threats, and acts of violence following the passage of health care reform have been shocking, but they’re only the most recent manifestations of an increasing sense of desperation.

It’s an extension of a now-familiar theme: some version of “take our country back.” The problem is that the country romanticized by the far right hasn’t existed for some time, and its ability to deny that fact grows more dim every day. President Obama and what he represents has jolted extremists into the present and forced them to confront the future. And it scares them.

Even the optics must be irritating. A woman (Nancy Pelosi) pushed the health care bill through the House. The bill’s most visible and vocal proponents included a gay man (Barney Frank) and a Jew (Anthony Weiner). And the black man in the White House signed the bill into law. It’s enough to make a good old boy go crazy.

Hence their anger and frustration, which is playing out in ways large and small. There is the current spattering of threats and violence, but there also is the run on guns and the explosive growth of nefarious antigovernment and anti-immigrant groups. In fact, according to a report entitled “Rage on the Right: The Year in Hate and Extremism” recently released by the Southern Poverty Law Center, “nativist extremist” groups that confront and harass suspected immigrants have increased nearly 80 percent since President Obama took office, and antigovernment “patriot” groups more than tripled over that period.

Politically, this frustration is epitomized by the Tea Party movement. It may have some legitimate concerns (taxation, the role of government, etc.), but its message is lost in the madness. And now the anemic Republican establishment, covetous of the Tea Party’s passion, is moving to absorb it, not admonish it. Instead of jettisoning the radical language, rabid bigotry and rising violence, the Republicans justify it. (They don’t want to refute it as much as funnel it.)

There may be a short-term benefit in this strategy, but it’s a long-term loser.

A Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday took a look at the Tea Party members and found them to be just as anachronistic to the direction of the country’s demographics as the Republican Party. For instance, they were disproportionately white, evangelical Christian and “less educated … than the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack.” This at a time when the country is becoming more diverse (some demographers believe that 2010 could be the first year that most children born in the country will be nonwhite, less doctrinally dogmatic, and college enrollment is through the roof. The Tea Party, my friends, is not the future.

You may want “your country back,” but you can’t have it. That sound you hear is the relentless, irrepressible march of change. Welcome to America: The Remix.

In “The Rage Is Not About Health Care” — NYTimes.com, Frank Rich writes:

That a tsunami of anger is gathering today is illogical, given that what the right calls “Obamacare” is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare, an epic entitlement that actually did precipitate a government takeover of a sizable chunk of American health care. But the explanation is plain: the health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It’s merely a handy excuse. The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964.

If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.

They can’t. Demographics are avatars of a change bigger than any bill contemplated by Obama or Congress. The week before the health care vote, the Times reported that births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48 percent of all births in America in the 12 months ending in July 2008. By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven’t had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.

In “Too much tea party racism” — Salon.com, Joan Walsh writes:

The tea party movement is disturbingly racist and reactionary, from its roots to its highest branches.

These views well reflect the increasingly obvious race-based double standard propounded in the media for more than a decade now: non-White aliens good, White natives evil.

The psychological device they’re using in the battle over healthcare is the same one that’s been used against anyone opposed to immigration. They call Whites “racist” for objecting to anything we don’t believe is in our best interests, trying to guilt-trip us and implying that we’re somehow morally or mentally defective. As we can see from the full-throated anti-White reaction to even the largely deracinated Tea Partiers, whether we think or speak in explicitly racial terms is irrelevant. Our “anti-racist” antagonists are hyper-sensitive to race and any conflict with their own racial interests, or as in the case of Joan Walsh, act as a self-righteous proxy for such interests. White leaders perversely reject and profess distaste for our group interests even as we see an increasing number of non-White leaders who openly and unabashedly advocate in favor of theirs.

White fears are justified. We had a country of our own and still want one, organized to our tastes and run for our benefit. What sane group of people does not? In 1965 we were told that the changes to the immigration laws would not alter the ethnic makeup of our country. Anyone who foresaw that it would was smeared as an insane “racist.” Today it’s clear that immigration has in fact radically changed the ethnic makeup of the country. Now we’re told it’s irrepressible, irrevocable, and the country is no longer ours. Anyone angered by this situation or the duplicity used to produce it is smeared as an insane “racist.”

We are being displaced and dispossessed by genocidal levels of immigration and concomitant inter-racial transfers of wealth and power. This is foisted on us by liars and hypocrites whose deceptions, self-interests, and disdain for us becomes more transparent every day. They control all the major channels of education and discourse, and thus shape the terms of debate, defining and denigrating practically anything we have to say about any of this as “hate.” Their moralizing invokes injustices decades or centuries past, while they disregard and even celebrate the injustices being done to Whites right here, right now. They project onto us and decry their own malign motives and guilty deeds, shamelessly broadcasting a never-ending stream of race-based vitriol and fear mongering from myriad well-funded, high-profile sources, attacking us for peaceably expressing legitimate political interests. We have accommodated and appeased them for too long. For decades we have demonstrated our good faith, which they have taken advantage of and not reciprocated. The harder they try now to scapegoat us and the louder they insinuate that our calls for self-determination portend violence, the more they reveal their malevolent intent.

Age of Treason, March 31, 2010

Jacques Louis David, "Leonidas at Thermopylae"

We all have natural partialities: for family over non-kin, friends over strangers, fellow countrymen over foreigners, racial brethren over members of other races. Philosophers from Aristotle to Carl Schmitt have recognized that these partialities are the heart of political life.

But most moralists eye these partialities with suspicion. Moral laws, they claim, apply to everyone, regardless of his relationship to us. Murder is wrong, whether we kill a stranger or a friend. Fairness requires that we judge a stranger by the same standards by which we judge a friend. Moral laws are universal, and that universality means that we must be impartial in all our moral judgments and dealings.

For the sake of argument I am willing to grant that moral laws are universal. But I don’t think that implies that all of our judgments and dealings must be impartial. Yes, when we have a case before a judge or arbitrator, we want him to be impartial. But do you want your parents to be impartial when deciding whether to send you or the class valedictorian to college? The most impartial judges are strangers to us. But we do not spend all our time with strangers, and kinship, friendship, and other natural bonds of affection do matter.

I grant that it is wrong to murder both strangers and friends, but surely it is worse to murder a friend. We are saddened to hear of the murder of a child. But we are horrified when we learn that the killer was the mother. We react this way, because we think that mothers should be partial to their children, and a crime that violates such natural partialities seems particularly bad. A moral philosophy that holds all murders equally heinous, regardless of these partialities, is simply absurd.

I look at ethics through a biological lens. A proposed moral principle cannot conflict with the survival of the race. Principles incompatible with survival die out along with their adherents. But there is another consideration beyond survival. There are plenty of bad ideas, foolish principles, and destructive lifestyles whose harm falls far short of killing their practitioners, or impeding their reproductive success. The only way to weed these out is to adopt as one’s standard not mere racial survival, but racial perfection. And from the point of view of racial survival and perfection, impartiality is folly.

Why is my standard the survival and flourishing of the race, not the individual? I am not an individualist, because individualism ignores the fact that we are all parts and products of biological groups: breeding populations. A race is simply a breeding population that has taken on a distinct identity because it has been geographically isolated, endogamous, and subject to unique environmental conditions for a sufficient length of time.

If the individual, not the group, is the highest value, then under no condition is it right for him to risk or sacrifice his life for the group. This means that the Spartans who fought to the last man at Thermopylae were suckers, but the man who would buy a few more years for himself by condemning the whole race to extinction is a paragon of virtue. The individual who lives only for himself, oblivious to the race that produced him and endowed him with the talents he cultivates or squanders, is a mean little creature, ungrateful to those who came before, improvident of those who will come after, if any. The isolated individual has but one life and one death. But the racially conscious individual realizes that countless forebears live on in him, and he seeks a kind of immortality for himself and them in his own posterity.

But why is the standard the survival of one’s own race and not the human race in general? If the races of man lived in harmony and had no conflicts of interest, then of course we should think of the interests of the whole human race. But we are a long way from that point, and haven’t gotten any closer during the past 50 years, despite the claims of the mass media.

The reality is: the races are at war with one another. The different human races are distinct subspecies, with distinct temperaments and talents, some of which conflict dramatically. It is an iron biological law that when two distinct subspecies try to occupy the same ecological niche in the same geographical region, there will be group conflict.

This conflict can be terminated in three ways. First, through interbreeding, which homogenizes the two subspecies into a new, distinct breed. Second, through the extermination of one group by other. Third, through the domination of one group by another.

In the case of humans, all three natural options are highly undesirable. The first two involve the destruction of one or more unique races shaped over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. The last results in a system prone to instability over the long run, as history repeatedly demonstrates.

But since we’re rational creatures, humans also have a fourth option: voluntary separation. This last option preserves racial uniqueness and eliminates interracial competition, allowing each race to shape the course of its own future.

No matter what the outcome, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson about blacks and whites in America: “two races, free and equal, cannot share the same country.” This biological law dooms all experiments in multiracial egalitarianism. The only practicable multiracial societies have been hierarchical segregated ones like Vedic India, South Africa, and the American South. But in the end, even these proved unworkable. The Indian caste system did not prevent racial admixture, while Apartheid and Southern slavery and segregation are long gone.

Everything we have seen since desegregation indicates the futility of multiracialism. Desegregation has not created the harmonious mixing of the races in freedom and equality. It has simply robbed whites of the ability to legally protect their living spaces from the incursions of other races. When these incursions occur, there is racial tension and conflict, which terminates only when whites flee and the neighborhood becomes predominantly black, or Mexican, or Asian. Those whites who remain are slowly destroyed by miscegenation or outright murder—both forms of genocide. Racial warfare will end only when groups separate from one another, or when the groups self-destruct due to miscegenation, or one group exterminates the others, or one group dominates and segregates itself from the others.

And make no mistake: America is in a state of racial war. It is no less a race war because, so far, whites are not fighting back but are in full retreat. They retreat from neighborhood to neighborhood, as one after another reaches the “tipping point” and becomes unlivable for whites. They retreat from cities to suburbs, from suburbs to exurbs, from states like California to states like Idaho and Montana. But at a certain point, there will be no place left to hide. The whole nation will reach the tipping point, and whites will finally have to stand and fight for our survival.

I hope that we stand and fight while we are still more than 60 percent of the population. Our odds of winning would be a lot higher than if we wait until our numbers slip below 50 percent.

In the midst of a race war, there can be no greater folly than impartiality, than the pious rot that “there is only one race, the human race.” Robert Frost once brilliantly described a liberal as a man who will not take his own side in a fight. In a fight to the death, such a policy is suicide.

In every transaction between a partial man and an impartial man, the impartial man is at a disadvantage. When the impartial man has a benefit to confer, the partial man appeals to the other’s impartiality and often walks off with the prize. But when the impartial man needs something from the partial man, his appeals to impartiality fall on deaf ears. As social interactions multiply, so do the partial man’s advantages at the expense of the impartial man. (The essence of the Jewish strategy of dominance is to practice ruthless partiality while urging their victims to be free of prejudice and partiality.)

Once the impartial man has nothing left to bargain with, once he has been reduced to powerlessness and penury, to what will he appeal to preserve his life and freedom? Impartiality? Universal notions of freedom and justice and rights? These are just pleading words unless one has the power to force others to respect them. But the impartial man has bargained all his power away. Pleading alone will not prevent him from being reduced to a slave or a corpse, and that is what we whites will become unless we start taking our own side, and quickly.

Modern liberals like to praise W. E. B. Du Bois for predicting that race would be the defining issue of the 20th century. But another man, writing at the same time, also made that prediction. Lothrop Stoddard (1883-1950) is not as well remembered as Du Bois and his name is usually paired with words like “racist” and “white supremacist,” but perhaps a better word would be prophet. His major work, The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy, was written in 1920 at a time when whites had colonized and ruled most of the world. Stoddard warned that supremacy was about to end and that whites had better prepare for the consequences.

Although he published 14 other books, The Rising Tide of Color remains his best known work. Published by Charles Scribner’s Sons, it was not an obscure right-wing manifesto but a mainstream sensation by a Harvard-educated scholar. In it Stoddard pointed out that the number of non-whites was growing rapidly and that some, especially Asians, were mastering Western technology. Increasing numbers of non-whites were threatening white colonies in some areas but, most importantly, they threatened even traditional white homelands. How skillful and united whites were in handling the rising tide would in large part determine the future of their race.

The Asian Threat

The Rising Tide of Color begins with a description of the various non-white populations of the earth. Although his classifications are sometimes crude, Stoddard makes sharp distinctions between different races of non-whites. In his view, East Asians living in the “yellow man’s land” were the greatest threat to whites. He classified north Asians — as well the west Asians of the “brown man’s world” — as high races with histories of accomplishment that deserve respect. Indeed, he wrote that for a thousand years the East put constant pressure on the West and at one time threatened to conquer all of Europe. By the time of Charlemagne, the “white man’s world” had shrunk to only the lands west of the Elbe River. Charlemagne pushed the invaders out but whites never fully reconquered the lands that had once been theirs — a failure in which Stoddard saw much significance:

… [W]est-central Asia, which in the dawn of history was predominantly white man’s country, is today racially brown man’s land in which white blood survives only as vestigial traces of vanishing significance. If this portion of Asia, the former seat of mighty white empires and possibly the very homeland of the white race itself, should have so entirely changed its ethnic character, what assurance can the most impressive political panorama give us that the present world order may not swiftly and utterly pass away?”

“Future generations have a right to demand of us that they shall be born white in a white man’s land.”

Of all the threats to the West, Stoddard believed the Japanese were the most serious. He quotes early British envoys who described Japanese as “highly intelligent children” who could quickly acquire Western techniques. In the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5 these “highly intelligent children,” shocked the world by becoming the first non-white nation in modern times to defeat a white nation. Since white hegemony was maintained not by love but by respect and fear, Russia’s defeat by Japan was, in Stoddard’s view, “a body blow to white ascendancy.”

Japanese writers and government officials were not shy about drawing conclusions from their victory, and soon began turning western ideas of supremacy on their heads. At the outbreak of the First World War, Japanese writer Yone Noguchi wrote that the conflict meant the ruin of whites. “It means the saddest downfall of the so-called western civilization; our belief that it was builded upon higher and sounder footing than ours was at once knocked down and killed; we are sorry that we somehow overestimated its happy possibility and were deceived and cheated by its superficial glory.”

Stoddard quotes a Japanese imperialist pronouncement written in 1916:

As for America — that fatuous booby with much money and much sentiment, but no cohesion, no brains of government … Well did my friend speak the other day when he called her people a race of thieves with the hearts of rabbits…

North America alone will support a billion people; that billion will be Japanese with their slaves. Not arid Asia, nor worn-out Europe (which, with its peculiar and quaint relics and customs should in the interests of history and culture, be in any case preserved), nor yet tropical Africa is fit for our people. But North America, that continent so succulently green, fresh, and unsullied — except for the few chattering mongrel Yankees — should have been ours by right of discovery; it shall be ours by the higher, nobler right of conquest.

A Burmese journal called Buddhism, wrote that the “yellow peril” was nothing more than an expression of Darwinian superiority.

The West has justified — perhaps with some reason — every aggression on weaker races by the doctrine of Survival of the Fittest; on the ground that it is best for future humanity that the unfit should be eliminated and give place to the most able race. That doctrine applies equally well to any possible struggle between Aryan and Mongolian — whichever survives, should it ever come to a struggle between the two for world mastery, will, on their own doctrine, be the one most fit to do so, and if the survivor be the Mongolian, then is the Mongolian no “peril’ to humanity, but the better part of it.

Although it was partially controlled by Japan, China also was a threat to the West. With one fourth of the world’s population, an armed China would pose an even greater challenge than Japan. Stoddard reported that in 1905 Chinese school children were taught to chant the following lines:

I pray that the frontiers of my country become hard as bronze; that it surpass Europe and America; that it subjugate Japan; that its land and sea armies cover themselves with resplendent glory; that over the whole earth float the Dragon Standard; that the universal mastery of the empire extend and progress. May our empire, like a sleeping tiger suddenly awakened, spring roaring into the arena of combats.

There was good reasons to take note of the Asians.

Brown Men

According to Stoddard, the brown man’s land was the Near and Middle East and stretched into northern Africa. Racially it was a jumble, including within its boundaries such groups as largely-white Persians and Turks, largely-black Yemenite Arabs, and Himalayan and Central Asian yellows. With the exception of India, he saw Islam as the great unifying force of this world. In 1920, the brown man’s world was completely controlled by whites, but this did not guarantee permanent white control in the face of rising brown solidarity fueled by what Stoddard called “the Mohammedan Revival.”

Ironically, this revival was aided by Western technology. Newspapers allowed Muslims to communicate with each other across their vast world. A Syrian Christian, Ameen Rihani, characterized that world in a May 1912 article in Forum magazine:

A nation of 250,000,000 souls, more than one-half under Christian rule, struggling to shake off its fetters … [A] nation with a glorious past, a living faith and language, an inspired Book, an undying hope, might be divided against itself by European diplomacy but can never be subjugated by European arms… What Islam is losing on the borders of Europe it is gaining in Africa and Central Asia through its modern propaganda, which is conducted according to Christian methods … Europe drills the Moslem to be a soldier who will ultimately turn his weapons against her …

Though Islam was a growing force, Stoddard did not think the brown threat comparable to the yellow peril. While Japanese talked openly of racial superiority and conquering white lands, the brown revolt against white rule was mainly defensive, showing few signs of expansion. Stoddard saw the brown man as having enough room for his growing population and thought any alliance among the browns would break up after white rule ended. He expected internal warfare among the browns to be constant, and thought a yellow-brown alliance unlikely. Stoddard’s main concern was that resurgent Islam might affect another sphere of white political control: black Africa.

The Dark Continent

Sub-Saharan Africa was the world of the black man. Four-fifths of the world’s 150,000,000 black people lived in Africa in 1920, with the rest scattered in the New World. Africans had suffered from a history of isolation: “Cut off from the Mediterranean by the desert which he had no means of crossing, and bounded elsewhere by oceans which he had no skill in navigating, the black man vegetated in savage obscurity, his habitat being well named the “Dark Continent.’” In stark language, Stoddard described blacks as never having developed a civilization and having no history: “Left to himself, he remained a savage, and in the past his only quickening has been where brown men have imposed their ideas and altered his blood. The originating powers of the European and the Asiatic are not in him.”

Though white contact with sub-Saharan Africa began four centuries earlier, only in the nineteenth century did Europe give the area its full attention. Within a generation Africa — both black and Arab — was partitioned by European powers, and only Liberia and present-day Ethiopia retained qualified independence.

Europeans took root in Africa — at both the northern and southern extremes — in a way they never did in Asia. Over a million Europeans — mostly French — settled in Algeria and Tunisia, and a million and a half Dutch and English in South Africa. With white control firmly established in these areas, the main question for Africa was whether whites could maintain their hold on the inner continent. This would depend on how well they contained the spread of Islam. According to Stoddard, the continent would fall either to white Christians or Islamic browns; Africans themselves would never be masters in their own house.

Stoddard believed the black man’s lack of originality and history made him particularly susceptible to outside ideas and people. Africans readily accepted the religions of both browns and whites, but since blacks were a naturally warlike people, they would be more inclined to accept Islam than Christianity. Islam had not yet penetrated below the equator and Stoddard praised the efforts of Christians to convert blacks:

In so far as he is Christianized, the negro’s savage instincts will be restrained and he will be predisposed to acquiesce in white tutelage. In so far as he is Islamized, the negro’s warlike propensities will be inflamed, and he will be used as the tool of Arab Pan-Islamism seeking to drive the white man from Africa and make the continent its very own.

Stoddard warned that “Pan-Islamism, once possessed of the Dark Continent and fired by militant zealots, might forge black Africa into a sword of wrath, the executor of sinister adventures.”

For Stoddard, the real value of Africa lay in its rich raw materials. He believed the European powers were well aware of the brown threat and was confident they could control the spread of Islam. Moreover, whites continued to settle in Africa, making more and more of it “white man’s country.” The real danger to white control lay in potential weakness and discord within the white world itself.

Red Men

By “red men” Stoddard meant the American Indians of Central and South America. In his view they accounted for about two-thirds of the population of this area with whites and “near-whites” comprising about ten percent. Stoddard contrasted the conquest of Latin America by the Spanish with the settling of North America by the British. The British undertook a genuine migration, bringing families who meant to stay, whereas Spanish men came alone to the New World for treasure and adventure and mated with Indian women. Their “mestizo” offspring were sometimes joined — primarily in Brazil — by the mulatto offspring of whites and black slaves. “Zambos” were the result of black-Indian mixing.

As long as the colonies were held by Spain, Latin America had a system of white rule, and what Stoddard calls an “idle and vapid” white governing class at least formally forbade miscegenation. After the revolutions against Spain, which Stoddard called a white civil war, there was massive racial change. The white rulers were decimated by the revolutions, and their ranks were further depleted by the large number of loyalists who returned to Spain. Non-whites, many of whom had fought for the revolutionaries, wanted their share of power and the result was a long series of coups, revolutions, and wars that resulted in a worsening of conditions in most of Latin America.

Stoddard praised Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay as mostly-white nations that encouraged European immigration. He particularly singled out Chile for its social and political stability as well as its racial consciousness: “The country was settled by a squirearchy of an almost English type. This ruling gentry jealously guarded its racial integrity. In fact, it possessed not merely a white but a Nordic race-consciousness.” Stoddard was optimistic about these areas of South America since white immigration — mostly German — seemed to be strengthening their already strong white identities. The rest of Latin America seemed doomed to endless cycles of anarchy, tyranny and revolution.

While Stoddard saw little of value in the red man’s land, he did think it important to keep Asians out. He noted that the Japanese had targeted Latin America for expansion, and quotes a Japanese he identifies only as Count Osuma as saying, “South America, especially the northern part, will furnish ample room for our surplus.” In fact, during this period Japan was trying to strengthen relations with Mexico by posing as a counter-balance to the hated “gringo.”

Stoddard predicted the red man’s land, like Africa, would eventually be controlled by outsiders, white or Asian. The other races were out of contention because: “The Indian is patently unable to construct a progressive civilization. As for the negro, he has proved as incapable in the New World as in the Old.” Again, as in Africa, whites had the advantage over Asians. With strongholds to the north and south and with increased European immigration, white hegemony in Latin America was secure unless “internecine discord,” robbed whites of their vigor.

‘The Swarming of the Whites’

Like Madison Grant (see AR, December 1997), Stoddard divided whites into Nordics, Alpines, and Mediterraneans. While he considered them all sound stock, in his view, the Nordic had made the race great. He argued that traditionally it was Nordics who repelled Asiatic invasions of Europe after Alpines or Mediterraneans had been defeated.

Before the 16th century Europe had a civilization no better than Asia’s, but the years 1500 to 1900 marked the “white flood.” This period began with Columbus in 1492 and was established in 1497 with Vasco da Gama’s discovery of a route to India. Stoddard believed these discoveries not only opened new lands to Europeans, but had a profound psychological effect as well. The white man went from static “dead-end” to dynamic discovery:

… [H]is inherent racial aptitudes had been stimulated by his past. The hard conditions of medieval life had disciplined him to adversity and had weeded him by natural selection. The hammer of Asiatic invasion, clanging for a thousand years on the brown-yellow anvil, had tempered the iron of Europe into the finest steel. The white man could think, could create, could fight superlatively well. No wonder the redskins and negroes feared and adored him as a god, while the somnolent races of the Farther East, stunned by this strange apparition rising from the pathless ocean, offered no effective opposition.

Thus began the swarming of the whites, like bees from the hive, to the uttermost ends of the earth. And, in return, Europe was quickened to intenser vitality. Goods, tools, ideas, men: all were produced at an unprecedented rate. So, by action and reaction, white progress grew by leaps and bounds … For four hundred years the pace never slackened, and at the close of the nineteenth century the white man stood the indubitable master of the world.

The thought that this supremacy could end, “never entered the head of one white man in a thousand,” wrote Stoddard. Indeed, in 1920 whites were the most numerous race on earth. Comprising one-third of humanity, they occupied 40 percent of the globe, and controlled 90 percent. He called white expansion “the most prodigious phenomenon in all recorded history … Never before has a race acquired such combined preponderance of numbers and dominion.” Though most whites could not foresee it, Stoddard warned that hegemony was about to be challenged.

Only white solidarity could stop the rising tide of color, but the First World War destroyed this solidarity and showed the colored world that whites were vulnerable through internal discord. Just as the Peloponnesian War was the suicide of Greek civilization (“the saddest page in history,” writes Stoddard) the Great War threatened to mark the end of white supremacy.

“The war was nothing short of a headlong plunge into race suicide,” wrote Stoddard. He estimates it took 40,000,000 lives including civilians. Moreover, the conflict had a severe dysgenic effect, with the best young men of Europe dying without passing on their genes. The least fit — the cowardly and physically or mentally deficient — were left behind to propagate. Thus in 1920, at the time Stoddard wrote, the heart of the white world lay in ruins. Europe was financially and physically broken, it’s racial solidarity shattered, the flower of its youth dead on the battlefield — it stood at the same crossroads as the Greeks following their fratricidal war. The decisions made then would determine the fate of the white world.

Plugging the Dikes

In his plan to hold back the tide, Stoddard divided the world into “dikes.” The outer dikes were areas where whites had political control but had not settled. Examples were India and Egypt. Inner dikes were areas where whites firmly established, as they were in North America and Australia. Between these two lay a category he called enclaves, where whites had settled but had not displaced the native populations. Examples were Algeria and South Africa.

Though Stoddard did not advocate outright abandonment of the outer dikes, he did not consider them necessary for white survival. The question of retention would turn on economic, political, and strategic considerations. In the case of Asia, he urged whites to face the inevitable: “White men must get out of their heads the idea that the Asiatics are “inferior.”… Men worthy of independence will sooner or later get it … Let us not exhaust ourselves by stubborn resistance in Asia which in the end must prove futile.”

The inner dikes were the frontiers of the white world marked not by boundary stones but flesh and blood: “They are the true bulwarks of the race, the patrimony of future generations who have a right to demand of us that they shall be born white in a white man’s land. Ill will it fare if ever our race should close its ears to this most elemental call of the blood.”

The inner dikes could be breached by war, trade, or immigration. Japan showed in the Russo-Japanese War that it was a military power. Also, it and other Asian nations were in the process of industrializing and could potentially threaten the West through trade. As they prospered they would look for new areas for their surplus population, including Australia and the United States. The only thing to stop this immigration was the will of whites. If this will ever faltered or was weakened by internal discord, the inner dikes would be flooded by people seeking the better living conditions offered by the West. This is why Stoddard saw the First World War as such a bad omen (he also noted that each side used colored troops from the colonies to fight fellow whites).

Though he feared that whites were “ill-prepared” to stop the rising tide of color, he still hoped they would rediscover that race is destiny. It was due to their unique genetic heritage that whites could rule the world and create a great civilization, and it was impossible to have the civilization without the race.

For white civilization is today conterminous with the white race… It will be swamped by the triumphant colored races, who will obliterate the white man by elimination or absorption. What has taken place in Central Asia, once a white and now a brown or yellow land, will take place in Australasia, Europe and America. Not today, not tomorrow; perhaps not for generations; but surely in the end. If the present drift be not changed, we whites are all ultimately doomed.

Warnings, Heeded and Ignored

Lothrop Stoddard was not alone in warning the West. The early 20th century saw the publication of several major books on the importance of race. Among these were: Mankind at the Crossroads by E. G. Conklin (1914), The Passing of the Great Race by Madison Grant (1916) and Race and National Solidarity by Charles Josey (1923) (reviewed in AR, August 1992). The May 7, 1921 Saturday Evening Post carried an editorial on immigration that said, “Two books in particular that every American should read if he wishes to understand the full gravity of our present immigration problem: Mr. Madison Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race and Dr. Lothrop Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color … These books should do a vast amount of good if they fall into the hands of readers who can face without wincing the impact of new and disturbing ideas.”

Initially some leaders were ready to heed the warnings. Congress passed the Johnson Act of 1924, which effectively ended non-white immigration. Stoddard testified at the congressional hearings. Also, the new science of eugenics was becoming well accepted. Stoddard was in charge of publicity for the Second Eugenics Congress of 1921, which was chaired by Madison Grant and held at the American Museum of Natural History in New York (see AR, February 1997, for an account of the respectability and broad popularity of the early eugenics movement).

Despite these early successes, subsequent leaders ignored Lothrop Stoddard’s warnings. Twenty years after The Rising Tide of Color was published, Europe again erupted into civil war. Nazi Germany allied with the dreaded Japanese, who made good on their threat to attack the United States. Eugenics was soon linked to Adolf Hitler and concentration camps. Europe gave up her Asian colonies and soon all of Africa was freed. The supposedly permanent white colonies in Algeria and Tunisia were betrayed in the 1960s and Rhodesia and South Africa collapsed soon after. Australia abandoned her “whites-only” immigration policy in the 1970s and the United States and Canada put in motion immigration policies which, if not reformed, will make whites a minority by mid-century. Even Europe, the heart of the white world, faces massive Third-World immigration and high fertility rates combined with below-replacement white birth rates.

Just as Stoddard feared, the rising tide of color is swamping the West. Ironically, it is not the “yellows” who are displacing whites so much as the “reds,” “browns”and blacks, from whom Stoddard expected no real challenge. But just as he predicted, white disunity and loss of will are the culprits, not the inherent dynamism of non-whites. We still have time to rebuild the inner dikes — but only if we rekindle the will to do so

Translated by Greg Johnson

The Jewish people have a plan for humanity; a grandiose plan that they have pursued on all fronts for centuries: universal peace on earth. The concept of “peace” is, indeed, at the heart of Judaism, and it is not just chance that this word (shalom, in Hebrew), is frequently used by Jews the world over.

In this perfect world that they would build, all conflicts will have disappeared from the face of the earth, especially conflicts between nations. This is why the Jews militate incessantly for the removal of borders and the dissolution of national identities. Nations being the causes of wars and disorder, it is thus necessary to weaken them and, in the long term, to abolish them in favor of a world government that can only make happiness and prosperity reign on earth.

Whether they are leftists or rightists, Marxists or liberals, believers or atheists, Zionists or “perfectly assimilated,” the Jews are always the most fervent supporters of the multicultural society, planetary miscegenation, and global Empire. When all other identities disappear, only the Jewish people will remain, recognized by all as the “chosen people” of God.

Jewish Fanaticism, first off, is the thirty million deaths, Russians and Ukrainians liquidated in the Communist adventure of 1917 to 1947. One can never say enough about the appalling role of Jewish ideologues, Jewish bureaucrats, and Jewish torturers in this story.

Jewish Fanaticism, it is this systematic eagerness to make Europeans feel guilty, to make them hang their heads and fall to their knees for crimes they did not commit, or for crimes for which Jews themselves might feel a little guilty but prefer “to transfer” to others. One thinks here of the leaders of the black slave trade, for example, or the shameless exploitation of the wealth and raw materials of the Third World.

Jewish Fanaticism, it is this unrestrained propaganda, conveyed through all the media, in favor of immigration and the multicultural society. Jewish intellectuals, Jewish politicians, and Jewish financiers bear most of the responsibility for the immigration invasion that has disfigured France in only 30 years. It is necessary to say it again and again: immigration is not a natural phenomenon but the result of a tireless campaign of cosmopolitan propaganda which is part of the politico-religious plan of the Jewish people.

Jewish Fanaticism, it is also warmongering politics that ultimately amounts to whipping up the hatred of the Western masses against any nation that still refuses democratic domination and the hegemony of Israel. Today they are preparing us for a war against Iran, as they once stirred up wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, and Germany.

Jewish Fanaticism, it is also this “great intolerance of frustration,” to give it a medical diagnosis. Anyone who has the audacity to say one word against the “Jewish lobby,” Israeli policy, or Jewish “over-representation” in the media immediately finds himself dragged through the mud by the whole media system, covered in spit, calumniated, vilified, delivered to the feet and fists of a hysterical mob hypnotized by the buzzwords of Big Brother.

In this new book of 400 pages, I base my case once again primarily on the writings of Jewish intellectuals, ancient and modern. Thus my conclusions are incontestable. If I speak about “Israeli hegemony,” it is because explicit documents allow us to say that the Jews seek to establish world domination. And if I write “the Jews” and not “certain Jews,” it is because my sources are now sufficiently many and varied to support such generality.

September 2007

Source: http://storage.canalblog.com/29/53/516490/47626715.pdf

Judaism is not merely a “religion,” as many Jews are overt atheists or agnostics, and they do not consider themselves less Jewish for all that. Jewry is also not a race even if it is true that a “trained eye,” most of the time, can recognize a Jewish appearance, that is to say, a characteristic pattern which is the result of their strict observance of endogamy for centuries. Jews see themselves as the “chosen ones” of God, and marriage outside the community is strictly frowned upon. However, mixed marriages do exist and have also helped to renew the blood of Israel during all the centuries spent in the various ghettos where the Jews preferred to live, separately and apart from the rest of the population. The essential condition for such mixed marriages is that the mother be Jewish, since Orthodox Rabbis recognize as Jewish only the child born of a Jewish mother. However, having just a Jewish father or grandparent can suffice for a person to identify completely with Judaism. Jewishness is therefore a “mental race” that has been shaped over the centuries by the Hebrew religion and the universalist project of Judaism.

Judaism is a Political Project

Judaism is essentially a political project. It is important for Jews to work toward the emergence of a world at “peace,” a peace meant to be universal and permanent. It is therefore not a coincidence that this word “peace” (shalom in Hebrew) is found frequently in Jewish discourse worldwide. In the perfect world that they are building, all conflicts will disappear between the nations. This is why Jews have been militating tirelessly for many years for the abolition of all borders, the dissolution of national identities and the establishment of a global empire of “peace.” The very existence of separate nations is considered to be responsible for the triggering of wars and turmoil. so they must be weakened and eventually replaced by a world government, a “one world government,” a “New World Order,” one single world-ruling authority that will permit happiness and prosperity to reign, Jewish-style, on earth.

We find this idea more or less developed both in the writings of certain intellectual Marxists such as Karl Marx himself and the Jewish-French philosopher Jacques Derrida and also in the discourse of liberal thinkers such as Karl Popper, Milton Friedman and France’s Alain Minc. The idea is to unify the world by all means necessary and to generate cultural conflicts that will weaken nation-states. It is for this One World that intellectuals Jews labor tirelessly all over the world. Whether they call themselves left- or right-wing, liberal or Marxist, believers or atheists, they are the most ardent propagandists of the pluralistic society and of universal miscegenation, that is of racial mixture.

Thus, all their strength the Jews – basically, ALL the vocal Jews in the world – encourage non-white immigration into every country in which they are located, not only because the multicultural society is their fundamental political aim, but also because the disintegration of national identity in each nation and the massive presence of anti-white immigrants is designed to prevent the original white population from succeeding in any nationalistic outbursts against the Jewish sway over finance, politics, and the media. All Jewish intellectuals, without any exception, are focused on this question of building the “pluralistic society” and for this they practice constant “vigilance against racism.” In France, influential writers and journalists such as Bernard-Henri Levy, Jacques Attali, Jean Daniel, Guy Sorman, and Guy Konopniki agree on pluralism and anti-racism despite their political divergences in other areas. This obsession, which is very characteristic of Judaism, is also manifested in movies, where many producers and directors are influential Jews. As soon as a film starts defending and promoting interbreeding, “tolerance” and pluralism, we can be sure that the producer of it is Jewish.

Now we can understand better why the former communists and leftists of the 1970s did not have to make such a big leap to become today’s “neoconservatives.” They have merely switched to a different strategy to achieve the same goal: the rule by racially pure Jews over a racially mixed society.

The fact is that after the Palestinian intifada began in October 2000, the Jews in France and the rest of the Western world have realized that nowadays the danger to their interests and their project comes primarily from Islam and from young African immigrants, both Arabic and black. Their aim is to strengthen the modern race-mixing and race-blending society, which they have contributed so much to establish in our country of France. But this mosaic now threatens to break up into separate communities, and this the Jews do not want. They want no separate identities or separateness at all, except a separate Jewish identity and Jewish separateness. Former Marxists in France such as Alexandre Adler, André Glucksmann, and Pascal Bruckner thus support nowadays, along with Alain Finkielkraut, the right-wing, pro-Washington, pro-Zionist party of Nicolas Sarkozy. And yet they have not become French patriots. They react only for the exclusive benefit of Jewry, asking, as American Jews proverbially do on every issue: “Is it good for the Jews ?”

“Tolerance” as a Weapon

The members of the Jewish sect are the most proselytizing people on earth, but unlike Christians or Muslims, who dream of converting all peoples of all races to their faith, the Jews have no plan to convert the world to their own faith, Judaism, but simply to encourage other nationalities to give up their national and religious identities – and live only for the goal of “tolerance.” The unceasing campaigns to blame all Whites for slavery, colonialism, the plundering of the Third World or for Auschwitz have no other purpose than putting the opponent on the defensive, and getting him on his knees not by violence but via guilt. When the Jews are the only people left on earth who are keeping their faith and their traditions, they will finally be recognized by everyone as God’s “chosen people.”

Their “mission” (and Jews frequently use this term “mission”) is to disarm the other peoples, to dissolve anything which is not Jewish or Jewish-controlled, to grind the people down to a powder for making a new identity-free work force, and thus to favor a universal “peace” among the peoples who have no more “divisive” identities.

As their prophet Isaiah said: “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the tiger will rest with the kid, the lion and the ram shall live together, and a young child will lead them” (Isaiah 11: 6-9). The Messiah, coming from Israel, and awaited for three thousands years, will establish anew the kingdom of David and will give the Jews an empire over all the earth. And certain Jewish texts explicitly call for this.

Jews are therefore continuously encouraged to campaign, in whatever society they inhabit, in order to promote the unification of the world – and thus to also hasten the arrival of their promised and cherished Messiah. Propaganda is a Jewish specialty, and it is no coincidence that Jews become so influential in all the media. In their hands, the concepts of “tolerance” and “human rights” have become incredibly efficient weapons of white guilt and accusation against the majority culture. In fact, it is not through Jewish-sounding names or a Jewish physical appearance that we can best recognize Jews, but rather from what they write and say wherever they are on earth.

Selective Amnesia and Fabulation

Many Jews, as we know, played an absolutely huge role in the Soviet tragedy 1917-1991 and the thirty million deaths that marked this era. Let us remember that Karl Marx was born into a Jewish family and that Lenin himself had a Jewish maternal grandfather, that Leon Trotsky, the Bolshevik founder and head of the Red Army, was born a Bronstein, while Kamenev (real name: Rosenfeld) and Zinoviev (real name: Apfelbaum) were running the two Bolshevik-conquered capitals of Moscow and St. Petersburg. But the list of Jews who stood out in the mega-crimes of Communism is endless. It must be said and it must be repeated: Jewish officials and Jewish torturers bore a very heavy responsibility in this tragedy. The “perfect” world they concocted and which was supposedly “historically inevitable” turned out from the very beginning to be a nightmare for the Russian population. It was not until 1948 when the Jewish intellectual elite Jewish began distancing itself from the Stalinist government, and this was only because Stalin had launched his “anti-Zionist” campaign, meant to purge pro-Israel Jews from senior leadership positions.

This indisputable Jewish guilt for the gigantic crimes of Bolshevism is now systematically being shoved down the Memory Hole (the phrase from George Orwell’s 1984). In Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s 2002 book Two Centuries Together, the Nobel Laureate and 11-year veteran of the Bolshevik gulag expresses outrage that Jewish intellectuals were still refusing to recognize their ethnic responsibility in the slaughter of millions of Christians. Solzhenitsyn also denounces modern Jews who pose as victims of an “antisemitic” Bolshevik government when that government was in fact heavily Jewish and Jews were among the worst perpetrators.

This selective amnesia is necessary for a people who ceaselessly proclaim their “innocence” of any provocative acts, as we regularly note in their writings, for example in an editorial in Israel magazine of April 2003, “the first Israeli monthly magazine in the French language” written under the name of a certain André Darmon.

He wrote: “To kill a Jew or a child makes God cry, for we are exterminating [in the Jew] the bearer of universal ethics and innocence.”

No less!

With this mindset of absolute innocence Jews cannot conceive bearing any responsibility for their atrocities. Jews are only victims, only “scapegoats” in an evil and hostile world. But very soon the Messiah will punish the “wicked” and will restore the victimized sons of Israel to their full rights.

Nevertheless, in this same Israel magazine editorial, a certain Frederick Stroussi asserted that the Nazi government was worse than the Stalin regime. He quoted the cruelties he claimed were perpetrated by certain SS men. For example, we learn from Stroussi that the Latvian SS man Cukur’s hobby was to toss Jewish babies in the air to shoot them in their head as in skeet shooting. He also writes of other episodes, such as the rape of children by the SS before they killed them. The Second World War has certainly stimulated the fertile imagination of the children of Israel.

Or perhaps this imagination is once again a case of the Jews’ own “projection” syndrome, that is, accusing others systematically of one’s very own crimes as a matter of consistent PR policy: always attack. We know in fact – even if the media never speak about it – that many Jews and their rabbis are involved in the felony crime of pedophilia (see Psychanalyse du Judaisme, 2007).

And murdering a child would seem to be more a Jewish specialty than a characteristic of the SS mind. The revelations of tenured professor Ariel Toaff of Bar Eilan University in Israel – the son of the former Grand Rabbi of Rome – and buttressed in February 2007 by his 147-page, heavily footnoted, scholarly work Pasqua di Sangue [ Blood Passover] – reveals proof of ritual murder among some Ashkenazi Jews (Jews of Eastern European origin).

Emotional Fragility

We outsiders are thus supposed to understand that the sufferings of Jews cannot be compared to those of any others. As a consequence, we are supposed to get as indignant as they do when a serious historian such as Stephane Courtois states (in the preface of his famous Black Book of Communism): “The death of a Ukrainian child of Kulak origin [ from the independent farmer class] who is deliberately forced to starve to death by the Stalinist government is as significant as the death of a Jewish child in the Warsaw ghetto.” These simple words were enough to provoke the ire of Frederic Stroussi who declares he was “stunned” by such an affront. Such a remark, according to him, was “despicable” and represented a vulgar attack against Israel: “What does this comparison have to do here?” he writes. “Why do we have to use the slaughter of a Jewish child to transmit this underlying, false and hateful rumor that the Jews overshadow all other victims of totalitarianism and monopolize all the attention on themselves?”

The author of the article, as we can notice, reacts in a outraged and totally disproportionate way to the modest and certainly justified intentions of the level-headed historian Stephane Courtois. Stroussi demonstrates here the “great intolerance to the frustration” which are so characteristic of the Jewish intellectual. Such reactions are clearly not “normal.”

We note that Israel magazine is a monthly magazine designed for the Jewish community and that, consequently, one can hardly accuse Frederick Sroussi of lying to goyish readers, or hiding from the goyim the true nature of Bolshevism and the supposedly malefic cruelty of the SS. His discourse here does not correspond to any false dialectic, as anti-Semites claim, but here, in this magazine by and for Jews, he is reflecting, as a Jew among Jews, writing to Jews, the very essence of their soul: 1) We are always innocent – and 2) Jewish lives are more valuable than those of others.

There is an “attack anti-Semitism” that stems from a failure to understand the Jewish identity and only sees deliberate perfidy where there is in reality a genuine existential anxiety, one generated by a deep psychological dysfunction.

Hysterical People

The Jews have never dared to collectively approach the mirror on their inner lives represented by Freudian psychoanalysis, a prism through which the Jews claim to see all humanity, but which, on closer analysis, sheds far more light on the specific neuroses of Judaism. Psychoanalysis, like Marxism, is a “Jewish science” and a product of the Jewish mind. It was therefore logical to wonder how this Freudian “discovery” corresponds to Jewish specificities.

The answer was not initially obvious to the author, and it took the reading and analysis of hundreds of books of all kinds, mostly written by Jews themselves, for him to realize that the searing question of incest stands at the throbbing heart of the Jewish question, and not theoretically either.

Jewish mothers do love their sons, as is well known, but outright incest is at the origin of a well-known mental illness – one that especially afflicts Jews – called “hysteria.” Incest attracted early the attentions of Freud while he was developing his theories. The parallels between Judaism and hysterical pathology are quite natural.

Jewry is well-known for these syndromes: Hysteria, depression, introspection, amnesia, manipulation, pathological lying, ambivalent identity, prophetic deception, sexual ambiguity, and so on. Every Jewish symptom is found in hysteria.

Freud, as a loyal Jew, merely projected the traits of a specific community onto the rest of humanity. In reality, there is no “Oedipus complex” but rather an Israel complex (all Jews together technically being Israel, not just the Near Eastern state). In fact, Jews do not seem to really wish to discuss the topic of incest within their families. On the other hand, all the psychiatrists mention: “The hysterical woman so much wants a child from her father or her doctor that she can persuade herself that she is pregnant by one of them and thus develops a ‘nervous pregnancy.’”

It is interesting that all Jewish writers use the same term to refer to the coming of their Messiah, namely, the “delivery” of the Messiah. The whole Jewish community, we must understand, is “the wife of God” (the Shekhinah of the Kabbalist) who is some day supposed to give birth to the Messiah, and thus the whole of Jewry is indeed suffering from a “nervous pregnancy” not unlike that found in nervous, hysterical women.

Karl Kraus, the Austrian Jewish journalist who did not agree with Freud, wrote sarcastically: “Psychoanalysis is the mental illness of which it claims to be the cure.” But the right and the best formula can be stated in ten words: “Judaism is the disease that psychoanalysis is meant to cure.”

The Sexual Revolution

After Freud, other Jewish thinkers came along who produced a symbiosis between Freudian doctrine and Marxism. Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse preached sexual revolution in order to break down the patriarchal family and unleash “free sex.” Their theories largely inspired the student riots of May ’68. The 1970s saw a new wave of Freudo-Marxism and Jewish women were in the forefront (such as Gisele Halimi and Elisabeth Badinter in France and Bella Abzug, Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem in the USA). As time passed, a series of Jewish-inspired laws appeared, one after the other, designed to dissolve the family. In France, a Neuwirth-promoted law legalized the contraceptive pill (1967), then came the challenge to the authority of the father as head of the household (1970), then divorce by mutual consent (1974) and the “right” to abortion promoted by “Holocaust survivor” Simone Veil (1975). A great wave of movie porn accompanied this “liberation” from traditional family values. Here we are compelled to note that Jewish producers and film directors play a very important role in the sex film industry. (See my La Mafia Juive [The Jewish Mafia], 400 pages, 2008). Parallel to this, the Freudian concept of bisexuality favored the acceptance of overt “gay pride” and homosexuality.

A War Machine against Humanity

In fact, the only tangible results of this moral “liberation” was the systematic demoralization and criminalization of the white man, who is denounced tirelessly in movies, literature and history as the cause of all the planet’s ills and of the collapse of the West. The appeal of egalitarianism – as intended by Jewry – tends to level all ethnic differences and identities and brings about their slow destruction.

Yitzhak Attia, director of French-language seminars at the Yad Vashem Holocaust institute in Tel Aviv wrote this himself in the same issue of Israel magazine:

Even if reason tells us, even shouts with all its force the very absurdity of this confrontation between the small and insignificant people of Israel [i.e, all Jewry worldwide, not just “the State of Israel”] and the rest of humanity… as absurd, as incoherent and as monstrous as it may seem, we are engaged in close combat between Israel and the Nations – and it can only be genocidal and total because it is about our and their identities.

You read it right : Between the Jewish people and the rest of humanity the struggle can only be “genocidal and total.” The “peace” which Israel intends to confer is no more and no less than “genocide,” the warrant for the execution of all humanity – except for those allowed to live as cultureless slaves.

The Neutralization of the Devil

The question is whether the aggressiveness of Judaism can be neutralized in order to save humanity from its evils, evils that could prove even more serious than Marxism such as psychoanalysis and the ideology of globalism. First of all, we must face the facts: After all these centuries of mutual misunderstanding, the antisemitic Christians, the Muslims, and Hitler have all failed to resolve the Jewish question. The fact is that the Jews feed on and grow off the hatred they have engendered among all the peoples of this world. This hatred, it must be said, is vital for their survival and for their spiritual genetics. It has allowed them for many centuries now to close ranks within their community against an external enemy, while other civilizations have disappeared.

For their part, the rabbis spare no efforts to keep their gene pool Jewish. And so even a renegade Jew remains a Jew, and therefore it is perfectly useless to attempt to leave the Jewish prison community. Judaism is indeed a prison. Claiming that a Jew cannot ever stop being Jewish works in favor of Jewry’s survival.

Our mission must be to accommodate these sick among us, because the Jews are not “perfidious” people as much as they are sick people to be cured.

Jews are to be loved individually and sincerely in order to free them from the prison in which they are locked. Only then will they become free from the cult’s grip – and from the threat they pose to themselves and to all humanity.

Only then we will become free from this grip, and at the same time, they will free themselves from the evil inside them that threatens all mankind.

Autumn 2007
Source: http://storage.canalblog.com/88/46/516490/47626479.pdf

The birth rate of whites—native Europeans—in Europe is well below replacement level. As many writers including Pat Buchanan and Mark Steyn have noted, the aging, bloated European welfare states will increasingly be sustained by immigrants who are openly hostile to European culture. In America, our immigrants are much less likely to blow themselves to smithereens. But Hispanics are having 59% larger families than whites on average. Whites have long been headed for minority status, and Latinos are already flexing their demographic muscle in government and entertainment. The new majorities have their own cultures, and they will have their own interests to promote. The stewardship of Western Civilization isn’t their responsibility or their problem.

Somewhere in the litany of “hate facts” about the decline of white birth rates is a lesson about what happens to people-any group of humans, really-when they abandon family life and choose instead to promote consumerism, self-indulgence, non-reproductive sexuality and female careerism.

Occidental birth rates were already dropping before the deep recession. An article in a recent issue of The Atlantic ominously suggested that disproportionately increased male unemployment—the “mancession”—could have a dramatic effect on the stability of existing families, and make starting new families even less attractive to the young.

To pull Western Civilization out of its death spiral, Western men and women would have to conduct some sort of “War on Oblivion.” Westerners would have to re-assert the primacy of the reproductive family and stabilize their birth rates, or risk seeing their culture and heritage become dead history.

However, we seem to be doing just the opposite. Lawmakers and enforcers have colluded with feminists, progressives, and neocons alike to make dating women, getting married and fathering a big family seem like just about the dumbest thing a young man could do right now.

The Spearhead is a new online men’s magazine that focuses on men’s issues from, in many cases, a virulently anti-feminist perspective. It’s putting a younger, harder game face on the “Men’s Movement,” and its readership has been exploding. Some of its writers and readers identify as “MRA’s” (Men’s Rights Advocates), some go by the acronym MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), others consider themselves part of the “game” community. As a sometime writer for The Spearhead, I’ve learned much from these men about new legal and social hazards of sex, dating, marriage, and child-rearing. Some of these guys have really been burned, and they’re madder than Hell. The man behind the scenes at The Spearhead writes as “Welmer,” and as a divorced father of two, he feels their pain.

To begin with, why would men even want to be fathers today? Depictions of fatherhood in pop culture suggest that in a couple of generations we’ve gone from “Father Knows Best” to “Father is a Completely Inept But Loveably Quirky ATM Machine.”

Women say men should simply share the duties of parenting equally, but the media still giggles at stay-at-home dads, referring to them as “Mr. Moms.” Motherhood is sacralized, but any suggestion that fathers play a uniquely important, non-disposable role in child rearing is met with outrage and indignation from the growing hoards of single mothers.

What’s in it for men? Is it worth the sacrifice? Or should men who want to pass on their genes just make a deposit at the local sperm bank and save themselves the aggravation?

Fatherhood is and always has been a sacrifice. There is no guarantee of any temporal reward, or even gratitude in the long run. Passing on one’s genes may give a man some sense of satisfaction, but this is mere conceit, and, let’s face it: you’re just a disposable vessel as far as your genes are concerned anyway.

I think for men, the true reward may be in the sacrifice itself. There is something about men that compels them to live for something higher than themselves, whether it be God, tribe, or family. Sacrificing oneself for these ideals fulfills a spiritual need that men have, and in so doing they can provide great benefits to whatever institution harnesses their effort. Even in this era of destruction of families and suppression of the paternal role, a man can still be an immensely important part of his children’s lives. Culturally, men are starting to recognize this, and the criminal excesses of the family law system do not have quite the same crushing, isolating effect they used to.

So even though a wife can, with a lawyer, the police, an army of social workers, and a judge at her disposal, dismember a man’s life, she can’t fully destroy the connection between a father and his children. She may be able to do a tremendous amount of damage, but provided he literally survives a divorce (suicide rates and deaths from disease spike for men following divorce), a man can still find a fulfilling role as a father if he truly desires it.

Certainly all is not lost, at least not yet.

I have two sisters myself, and they are both happily married and raising kids with their husbands in fairly traditional households. It still happens. And plenty of divorced dads find a way to make it work against the odds. But the West has to start setting families—and fathers—up to succeed again.

You mentioned the “criminal excesses of the family law system.” The media is focused on single mothers and doesn’t seem to care much about what happens to men or their relationships with their kids after a divorce. And men don’t want to whine, they don’t want to be the squeaky wheel that gets the oil. I don’t think people are really aware of what men are up against and that’s one of the reasons I wanted to do this interview. There’s a lot of ground to cover, let’s start with divorces.

Has America incentivized divorce for women?

For some women it is definitely incentivized. Those who are stay at home mothers with high-earning husbands can make out like bandits, and often do. Perhaps the biggest incentive is the virtual presumption of maternal custody. Although some courts have tried to present a front of even-handedness, a man is highly unlikely to gain custody of the children unless (a) the mother is a basketcase, or (b) the mother doesn’t want custody. The reason more men are gaining custody is a result of the latter trend, which is increasing as women come to dominate the workforce. Women are also less likely to be jailed for child support obligations, and less likely to pay at all, so more and more women are choosing to leave their children with ex-husbands, who are often all too happy to raise their children with or without support from the mother.

However, the most important reason divorce is so common is not that it is incentivized, per se, but that there are no penalties for breaking the contract. On the balance, a woman is not likely to have a better, richer life after leaving her husband. In most cases she takes a financial hit, but this isn’t what she’s thinking about. Many, if not most, people tend to have a gambling mentality. This is how a lot of women approach divorce. They roll the dice hoping for the big time. Most of them come up short, but there’s always the dream of the big bucks, or, in this case, Mr. Big. I mean, who wants to stay chained to some lame husband schlepping away at some low-status job that doesn’t even support the entire family when popular culture and TV tell you what a princess you are. Of course, as a modern American woman, you deserve better than this loser.

So she puts her foot out in the water to see how warm it is, and then she jumps in. She isn’t going to get a windfall right away, and in many cases she never will, but she knows — probably from conversations with girlfriends or her mother — that society and the law will do everything possible to mitigate the consequences. If she has kids and needs to stay in the house, she can get a temporary custody order and she will get to stay in the house. If she needs the car for the kids, she keeps the car. The husband will be ordered out and ordered to keep making payments, etc. If he objects to this or attempts to stay, she can have him thrown out by the police, and they will do so-violently if he makes a fuss. In short, she is virtually guaranteed to face the minimum consequences possible for breaking her marital vows for any reason whatsoever.

Of course, the husband will face some pretty serious consequences, especially if children are involved. This is why men don’t often file for divorce, and when they do, it’s generally because they have no choice (child abduction, abandonment, theft, etc.). Many, many men will try to work things out even if they know their wives are cheating, breaking the bank — even pregnant by another man! They know that the only way to keep some semblance of a life is to swallow their pride and soldier on. In most cases this isn’t enough, and the divorce will happen anyway. This is why I would advise guys to simply bite the bullet and make a clean break.

If you care to consider something really disturbing concerning incentives, ask yourself what kind of male sexual relationship actually is incentivized. Marriage, with its 50% failure rate and extreme cost of failure, obviously is not. Casual sex with single women, with the possibility of being hit up with a paternity suit (or, in the worst case scenario, a false rape allegation), is not incentivized either. Of course, extramarital sex, with the high likelihood your wife will find out and divorce you, is very risky. So what’s left? Sex with married women, if you’re single (or childless).

Men who have sexual relationships with other men’s wives actually stand to gain on the balance in our current system of family law. Women are very good at hiding their affairs, so even if the woman gets pregnant, the cuckolded husband is likely to be established as the legal father, which means that the bio father will never have to pay a dime of child support. In most states, men only have a couple months to a couple years to contest paternity. That isn’t all that long if you didn’t know your wife was fooling around — not even long enough to know whether the kid actually looks like you in many cases. In some states, merely signing the birth certificate is enough to establish permanent legal paternity. Of course, most cheating women take some precautions to avoid pregnancy, so most affairs do not end up producing offspring.

Say the affair results in a divorce. The wife gets the house and car if she has kids, and now the boyfriend can move right in. He’s got zero responsibility, and the ex-husband is paying the bills. He’s got a free ride, all for breaking up a marriage. This is actually pretty common. The New York Times recently highlighted the cases of some guys whose wives left them for their lovers, and even when it was legally determined that the lover was the bio dad of the child, the husband was still ordered to pay child support while the child was living with its real father!

So if you want an example of criminal excess, there you go.

You mentioned some of the broader legal issues that men face in their relationships-are there any specific laws that are really doing more harm than good when it comes to keeping families together?

What are some precise, immediate steps that federal or state governments could take to “get out of the way” of thriving families or encourage more men to make the basic sacrifices that fatherhood requires?

I’ve grown to be very suspicious whenever politicians start talking about “taking steps.” It’s all the steps they’ve taken that have gotten us into this mess in the first place. In fact, they’ve stepped right into our families and our homes, and it hasn’t been helpful, to say the least.

The best thing government could do in regards to the family is step out of it. The attempt to enforce strict gender equality even in the home has been a disaster. Generous welfare for single mothers combined with coercive measures against single fathers has already wrecked black American families, and I think it would be rather arrogant and short-sighted to think it won’t do the same to the majority. Actually, it has already started to do so. White illegitimacy is at an all-time high and rising.

But it goes beyond interference with the family. Affirmative action in the workplace, schools and federal government has more than “leveled the playing field,” especially for the under-40 cohort. Younger men are already in trouble in all areas. A large proportion of them aren’t even equipped for marriage because their prospects are so dim. There has been a sustained, political effort to give girls incentives while penalizing boys. We are starting to see the effects of that. I don’t think this will end well—our tax base will be gutted.

Government obviously can’t solve everything. Culture is key. What kind of cultural changes do you think would be necessary to bring about a renewed interest in fatherhood and family life?

From a historical perspective, cultures adapt fairly quickly. Unfortunately, a generation doesn’t seem all that fast when you’re living history. If the government were to remove the problem institutions and laws, we’d be back on track within a generation. However, that won’t happen. Government does not shrink by nature. Laws tend to multiply. Look at the response every time some rare crime or tragedy occurs. Immediately, there are calls for new legislation. Sometimes laws are needed, but sometimes a one in a million occurrence is just that. Additionally, there is an entire industry built around getting new laws passed, and this includes congress.

The United States will legislate itself right into collapse, and that’s when culture will begin to change. When the government can no longer afford to pay checks to its employees, can’t afford to imprison people, and can’t even afford to enforce many of these laws, then this unnatural situation — this hothouse flower — will start to wilt. But I really have no idea when that will occur. The Fifth Horseman thinks it will take about ten years, and he’s taking an economic approach. Whether it’s tomorrow or decades from now, it will happen eventually. Until then, I guess we should just muddle through.

As for interest in fatherhood and family, it’s already here. The problem is simply that the means have been removed. I don’t think it will take any pressure or convincing to get men to have children, and to love their children and wives. In fact, pressuring them will inevitably backfire, because our culture apparently has a sadistic tendency to apply only coercive, punitive measures when it comes to men. This only creates more female entitlement, which, as previously mentioned, is one of the biggest problems we have today. Hatred of its men is probably the most critical flaw in Anglo civilization, and if that can’t be changed will probably be its downfall.

Absolutely. That’s the raison d’être for this very section of Alternative Right—”Virtus.” An appreciation for the importance of Western men and Western manhood is absolutely critical to the survival of Western Civilization.

To wrap up, where do you look for inspiration as a father?

Are there any role models, historical or mythological — or perhaps even some books — that present and future fathers in the West should look to for guidance to help them better envision their role in rearing their children?

It’s probably my Catholic background, but I can’t think of a more inspiring figure for fathers — especially wronged ones — today than Christ. Condemned by crooked lawyers and judges, thrown to the wolves by self-interested politicians, and ultimately martyred for those He loved — there are just so many parallels with today’s abandoned, persecuted fathers. Many men who go through the family law system must gain a renewed, and deeper, appreciation for the meaning of the Crucifixion. That so many churches have abandoned and vilified these men speaks volumes about the state of contemporary Christianity.

As for historical figures, that is a lot more difficult. Men’s love for their families is usually a deeply private matter. It must be, because that is usually where they are at their most vulnerable. Because of this, they don’t tend to publicly air the details of their family lives. When they do, it is often to confess some regret, which can be very touching.

In his autobiography, Benjamin Franklin, if my memory serves me here, listed his failure to inoculate a baby son against smallpox, which later claimed his life, as his greatest regret. Such inevitable personal failures of parenthood, in their tragedy, reveal the love and humanity inherent in men. Emperor Augustus was more troubled by his daughter’s misbehavior than anything else in his life, and Emperor Kang Xi of Qing Dynasty China was also deeply concerned by the misdeeds of an errant son.

So although these men’s concerns and weaknesses don’t make them role models in the conventional sense, I think it would be of great comfort for many men to know that their innermost fears, their self-doubt and the vulnerabilities that surround family life have been shared by many of the most accomplished, powerful men in history.

Sometimes, the most noble things about us are those that make us most personally vulnerable. Fatherhood is chief among these, so for inspiration we should look to men who, through the sacrifice and travails of fatherhood, have brought their measure of humanity to the world. Fortunately, we don’t have to look far: they are the men we see around us every day.

From Alternative Right, February 27, 2010

Sailer’s line of argument is hopelessly flawed:

The theory behind the dusty old concept of noblesse oblige is that a powerful class that thinks of itself as being in the game for the very long run will tend to behave in a more responsible fashion than one that doesn’t.

How do jews feel about this? We get a hint in “How to Think About: Jewish Bankers” on The Atlantic Wire, where media jew Michael Kinsley discusses finance jews. The attitude, which should be familiar to anyone who has ever opined on jewish influence, can be summed up as, “Yeah, jews are powerful. So what? Oh, and by the way, you’re a nasty jew-hater.”

Sailer presumes the jewish ruling class can be made to care about and behave like Whites. He compounds this error by presuming that they don’t think of themselves as being in the game for the long run. He’s wrong on both counts. Jews have for millennia existed in diaspora as a successful and influential minority. They have infiltrated, outwitted, and outlasted every nation in the Levant and Europe. They know who they are. They know their history. When they feel safe they boast of their success at our expense. When they need sympathy they instead recite a long litany of woe at our hands. They know non-jews tend to underestimate them. They have survived because they make a point of not tying their future to anyone else’s.

The reason jewish rule is so ruinous for Whites is because they are alien to us. They will never care for us or behave like us because they are not us. They know this, but for the most part Whites don’t. My previous post links comments in which political pundit jew Lawrence Auster admits as much, even while defending jewish interests:

James N. writes:

Do you really think that American Jews perceive themselves, and self-identify, as “insiders”? My experience is quite the contrary. In fact, I’ve always observed (and found it curious) that American Jews, from their positions of wealth and achievement, practically cultivate and nourish a sense of outsiderness, which is often wielded as a grievance.

My medical school class had 226 freshmen. Of these, at least 190 were Jewish. At that, an orthodox Jewish professor complained more than once that the admissions committee discriminated against Jews, proving that America truly had it in for the Jews.

I think that a lot of the recent, and public, obsessive anti-Bush and anti-Palin sentiments made by prominent Jews arise from this same sense that ordinary, middle-American virtues and values are alien to them, SO alien, in fact, that sounding off in public, in a borderline-hysterical way, is a way of proving group solidarity AND outsiderness at the same time.

LA replies:

I agree with your observations about Jewish attitudes. But in my comment I did not mean that Jews perceive themselves as insiders. I meant (1) that the white gentile majority perceives the Jews as insiders, and (2) that in key respects the Jews are, in reality, insiders. And therefore that a First Law-type analysis doesn’t fit them.

Sailer at least acknowledges that anyone who challenges jewish power is punished. Auster pretends all our society’s problems are due to “the majority” simply abdicating.

The reality is that America’s jewish ruling class is shameless. They are not embarrassed about lying to, defrauding, and ultimately genociding us. To the extent they or their apologists even respond to objections and resistance it is only to misdirect blame onto powerless “anti-semites”. It will stop only when enough people realize the consequences of jewish misrule and misbehavior and act against it.

For a more thorough review of jewish influence in media, see William Pierce’s “Who Rules America?” For more about what Sailer glibly alludes to as the “Sons of Ellis Island,” see Kevin MacDonald’s “Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review.” More on what Sailer has called the “Diversity Recession” and the jewish role he assiduously underplays can be found in “Minority Disproportions and the Fraud They Produce.” Damning evidence of the anti-White/pro-jew nature of the regime is discussed in “DHS Hypocrites Direct Fear and Hatred Toward Whites.” The graph above is from Yggdrasil’s examination of Diversity in income and education.

Age of Treason, March 10, 2010

I’ve been vindicated. He has finally gotten around to it.

He dove right to the crux of the issue: That they’re alien elites. He contrasts their disregard for and even reflexive hatred of the White American nation with the spirit of noblesse oblige manifested by the WASP elites they’ve replaced.

The problem with Sailer is that a part of his bargain with the devil to be an analytical genius was that he be socially retarded. To quote Brimelow from his foreword to America’s Half-Blood Prince:

He often reminds me of a gangly, goofy Labrador pup, bounding happily into the living room eager to show off the latest filthy bone he’s dug up, utterly oblivious to the universal shock, horror and dogicidal glares.

This sword slices both ways in this case. His condition leads him to casually stroll down this dangerous path of inquiry yet it renders him incapable of devising a workable solution after so thoroughly presenting the problem.

Veterans of the “Citizenism vs. White Nationalism” debates will see a familiar pattern emerging in Sailer’s plea for Jews to radically reconsider their relationship with White America. Why don’t our Jewish overlords stop thinking of us as a threat and expand their tribal sympathies to include us?

That’s just not how neurotypical humans work, Steve. You can, with constant pressure, disable the tribal instinct altogether. But you can’t arbitrarily mold it to your fancy. By analogy, you can castrate a child molester but you can’t make him have a normal sex drive.

Jews innately sense an “us” and “them” separation between themselves and their gentile hosts at a very basic level. That’s healthy, natural, and appropriate. Humans exist in tribes as naturally as geese exist in flocks and fish exist in schools. The problem is that only an indigenous elite can be expected to treat a nation fairly.

Jews are the abusive stepfather of Western Civilization.

The only lasting solution is to raise up or rehabilitate an indigenous elite. Jews aren’t the only managerial elite capable of latching onto an alien people, as the Overseas Chinese demonstrate. Simple anti-Semitism without accounting for the necessity of having an indigenous elite can only serve to deliver us to different alien overlords.

Occidental Dissent, March 9, 2010

His blog here paints a pretty clear picture again. His column is a comment David Brooks NYTimes column extolling the virtues of the new meritocracy compared to the bad old days when the WASPs ran the country. Brooks claims that “we have opened up opportunities for women, African-Americans, Jews, Italians, Poles, Hispanics and members of many other groups.”

In reality, however, the big winners from this “meritocracy” are Jews. Sailer points out that

In 2009, 35% of the Forbes 400 are from one ethnic group that makes up only 2% of the population. So, is “The Power Elite” really that much more diverse today?

If you break down Brooks’ list — “African-Americans, Jews, Italians, Poles, Hispanics”– by membership in the 2009 Forbes 400, you come up with:

African-Americans: 1 (Oprah)
, Jews: 141, 
Italians: 14
, Poles (and all other Eastern Europeans): 6, 
Hispanics: 2

Similarly, if you look at the 2009 Atlantic 50 ranking of most influential pundits, it’s half Jewish, versus 2% black and 0.5% Hispanic.

In other words, this increased “meritocratic diversity” among the elites that Brooks is writing about essentially consists of the rise of Jews over the last century.

The fact is that the new order is reasonably seen as less of a meritocracy than a new form of clubbishness where ethnic ties among Jews ease the way into top positions. Ethnic cohesion is certainly the main story of the Jewish academic and intellectual elite that constructed the Culture of Critique in the academic world, and the vast overrepresentation of Jews in the media elite mentioned by Sailer suggests it’s the same story there. Indeed, Jews are vastly overrepresented as students in elite academic institutions even controlling for IQ.

This new elite based on ethnic networking is at least as corrupt as the old WASP elite and its family ties. The new elite reacts with angry aggression and charges of “anti-Semitism” if one even mentions that they are in fact an elite.

The old elite had a sense of civic responsibility and national interest. As Sailer notes, the new elite seems to care nothing about the long term success of the society as a whole:

The unspoken implication of Brooks’ analysis is that American Jews should start thinking of themselves less as oppressed outcasts who need to go for whatever they can get while the getting is good, and start thinking of themselves more realistically as the core of the New American Establishment. Thus, American Jews should realize that, like the Protestant Establishment of yore, their privileged position as a de facto leadership caste bestows upon them corresponding duties to conserve the long-term well-being of the overall nation rather than to indulge in personal and ethnic profit and power maximization.

But the terrifying reality is that the Jewish ascendancy remains hostile to the traditional people and culture of America. Jews continue to earn like Episcopalians (actually more than Episcopalians) and vote like Puerto Ricans. They are the financial backbone of the Democratic Party and its coalition of non-White ethnic groups. (83% voted for Obama.) The organized Jewish community is a major pillar of support for massive, non-White immigration that will add 100 million non-Whites to the US in the next few decades.

The new elite is definitely not about conserving America for the long term success of the society as a whole. It’s about ethnic paranoia, ancient hatreds, and the desire to completely transform the society at the expense of its traditional people–elite and non-elite alike—at whatever the cost to the society as a whole. Hey, when it falls apart, just take the money and run to Israel.

Sailer makes it pretty clear that Brooks was not connecting the obvious dots: Since Jews took over America, things have definitely changed for the worse for White Americans.

The Occidental Observer Blog, February 23, 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

Perhaps they should adopt a sassy black child.

“No, We Can’t: The Impossibility of a Black British Head of State”
Peter Tatchell
The Huffington Post, January 20, 2010

As President Barack Obama celebrates his first year in the Oval Office, it is clear that the vast majority of the US public are relaxed and comfortable about having an African American head of state. Many dispute his policies but his race is no longer really an issue — which is how it should be.

In Britain, however, we can only dream of a black head of state. It isn’t going to happen any time soon because the UK system is rigged against a black leader. Black and Asian Britons are effectively barred by the system of hereditary monarchy.

For the foreseeable future, as in centuries past, no African, Asian, Arab, Caribbean or Latino Briton is eligible to assume role of British head of state.

Under Britain’s constitutional system, the head of state is the monarch – at present Queen Elizabeth II, head of the House of Windsor. The position of monarch and head of state is inherited through the Windsor family line. The Windsors are white and only their descendants are eligible to be monarch and British head of state. The result is a de facto race bar. . . . For more swill, click here.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, both of which he shepherded through Congress, would eliminate the remaining legal barriers to racial equality and commit the federal government to its insurance.

His State Department also put its entire weight behind these acts, warning members of Congress that the failure to embrace this legislation would severely hamper America’s Cold War effort.

Johnson then appointed numerous blacks to executive positions in his administration — more than all former presidents combined — and, worse, announced a “War on Poverty” to address black economic grievances.

In October 1965, he pushed through an immigration reform bill to eliminate the “discriminatory” national origins system created in 1924. For once segregation had been outlawed, the old immigration law appeared as an embarrassment to a nation now committed to multiracialism and anti-Communism.

Johnson’s radical reforms were the dramatic climax of the complicated relationship that had existed between race relations and foreign policy since 1945, for it was plainly evident after their passage that the US government was now fully committed to racial equality.

When Johnson left office in 1968, overwhelmed by the social-racial chaos his administration had caused, the series of factors that had earlier promoted the “Cold War on whites” also shifted.

Both decolonization and desegregation had, in effect, been achieved by 1968.

Nixon’s administration would then establish diplomatic relations with China and detente with the Soviet Union, demoting the significance of the Cold War (even though the Soviets continued to link imperialism and the “oppression of American blacks” in their anti-Vietnam rhetoric).

The nature of race relations and the problems associated with them also changed. No sooner had Johnson’s landmark bills been passed than a black rebellion broke out in Watts, leaving thirty-four dead and causing millions of dollars in property damage.

Here was the unwelcome shape of things to come, for racial conflict, it was now clear, was not a purely Southern problem, but no less a national one.

Throughout the remainder of the decade, virtually every major American city would be scared and seared by similar riots/rebellions, as the black masses, signaling their rejection of white liberalism and its gradualist approach to racism and discrimination, took to rioting and looting to promote the “Black Liberation” advocated by “the angry children of Malcolm X.”

Other sorts of protests also emerged — against poverty and war — further overshadowing the struggle against discrimination.

At the same time, increased urban violence and the revolutionary demands of the Black Power movement alienated much of the Establishment and set off a white “backlash” in the electorate, which demanded “law and order” and eventually brought Richard Nixon to power.

Though racial conflict would continue after 1968s and in some cases became more violent and vocal, its effect on US foreign policy seemed to wane.

Part of this was due to the ensuing white backlash, part to the fact that the legal basis of Jim Crow had been dismantled, and part to the Vietnam war, which re-focused international attention away from American race relations and toward American militarism.

Then, as Vietnam eclipsed civil rights as a defining issue of US prestige abroad and as the government continued to introduce domestic programs designed to promote not just black rights, but black employment, housing, and welfare, the linkage between race and foreign relations snapped.

Once it did, a different order of forces — associated with the rise of Jewish influence, the Cultural Revolution, and the new anti-white system of race relations — was mobilized against white interests.

The story of race and equality also became more complicated after 1968, for, internationally, it was now obvious that the US government was committed to eliminating the remaining racial barriers and, domestically, that economic and class problems were as integral to black failure as were legal barriers — economic and class problems that lacked the international resonance of legal segregation.

In such a situation, critics found it increasingly difficult to charge that things hadn’t changed and weren’t continuing to change — as we on the other side well know.

***

The Second World War had thrust the United States into a position of world leadership.

Though race played no part in determining US relations to the Soviet Union or shaping its global capitalist system, it did affect the way they were approached.

The crusade against Europe and the subsequent emergence of various nationalist movements in the Third World after 1945 changed the dynamic of the international arena and compelled the United States to reconsider its traditional system of race relations. This put the US civil rights movement and anti-Communism on parallel tracks.

At the same time, the international projection of US power brought new scrutiny to the character of American society. Racial incidents in the South ceased, thus, to be local events and became potential international headlines, detrimental to US global concerns.

As the boundaries between domestic and foreign affairs blurred, US officials, as was made clear to every president from Truman to Johnson, realized that they would not be able to maintain their world leadership, if American domestic affairs alienated the overwhelming majority of the world’s nonwhite population. Race relations at home were here again linked to US prestige and influence abroad.

The great changes that have reshaped America’s racial hierarchy in the last half-century, especially in subordinating white interests to blacks, are, I would argue, virtually incomprehensible apart from the international context of the Cold War.

One might even argue that, in world historical terms, the destruction of America’s former white-centric racial hierarchy represents a more consequential outcome than the collapse of Soviet Communism. For by the end of the Cold War, European-America had been transformed into a multiracial nation and the very idea of “white supremacy” exiled to the US equivalent of the Gulag.

The result is the present prospect of extinction — not unrelated, of course, to American-Jewish machinations, yet hardly dependent on them.

Nevertheless, the logic of Cold War civil rights had already taken hold of the government, propelling it ever closer toward the racial chaos we know today.

Though no racist, Eisenhower wasn’t keen on civil rights. Under his administration, blacks lost the easy access to the White House that they had acquired under Truman; only once, late in his presidency did he ever meet with civil rights leaders. Moreover, as a former soldier who had spent a good part of his career in the South, he had developed a real sympathy for Southern life (as “open-minded” Yankees do).

If civil rights were to be introduced (and he felt that some symbolic changes ought, perhaps, to be made for the sake of “national security”), he was convinced that it should be done slowly and moderately.

A few weeks before the Supreme Court’s Brown decision, which put the Constitution on the side of desegregation, he is reputed to have told Earl Warren that “segregationists are not bad people. All they are concerned about is to see that their sweet little girls are not required to sit in school alongside big overgrown Negroes.”

His was a generational attitude that was less and less shared by New Class elites. Thus, even though introduced by the Truman administration, the Republican National Committee was quick to take credit for Brown, portraying it as “the Eisenhower administration’s many-frontal attack on global Communism” — however unenthusiastic Eisenhower may have actually been.

Brown, indeed, provided the US government with a powerful counter to Soviet propaganda. The USIF went into overdrive to publicize it throughout the world, where it got largely favorable reviews.

Brown’s radical judicial assault on American race relations would, in fact, signal the beginning of the end for Jim Crow.

Buoyed up on the court’s decision, as well as the escalating struggle for decolonization in Africa and the Third World, the NAACP at this point sensed that the tide had at last turned in its favor.

In December 1955 it waged a year-long bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama, which would mark the advent of mass civil rights organizing. M.L. King described the boycott as part of a global process in which “the oppressed peoples of the world” had risen up against colonialism, imperialism, and racism.

This new stage in the civil movement can hardly be understood without the backdrop of the Cold War and the type of world it was creating.

Many, though, wanted no part of this world.

Unlike their counterparts today, Southern whites refused to passively accept this assault on their traditional way of life.

This was especially evident in September 1957 at Little Rock’s Central High School, where the first major challenge to Brown was made, as thousands of belligerent whites, supported by their governor, Orval Faubus, and the state National Guard, prepared to resist the court-mandated admission of nine Negroes to their all-white institution.

Not merely the Jewish controlled media in the United States, but the media worldwide carried vivid images of jeering white crowds threatening the nine neatly dressed and apparently well-mannered black teens, who, in braving the “mobs,” sought, simply, “to sit in the same classroom with white boys and girls.”

The Soviets, who would humiliate the US during the crisis by putting the first man-made satellite into orbit, offered the world numerous commentaries on this “racist” form of “American barbarism” — commentaries that were reprinted and circulated throughout the Third World.

At the same time, US embassies abroad deluged Washington with information on Little Rock’s unfavorable international impact and John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower’s Secretary of State, warned that both the UN and the nonaligned Third World was watching to see if the US was really committed to civil rights.

With the impending threat of violence in the streets and the plummeting of US prestige aboard, Eisenhower finally acted, sending in the 101st Airborne Division in order to stop, among other things, “the disservice . . . that has been done to the nation in the eyes of the world” — as “our enemies . . . gloat over the incident and use it everywhere to misrepresent our nation.”

As the first president since Reconstruction to mobilize the army in defense of black civil rights, Eisenhower had not wanted to intervene, but the breakdown of law and the continuing Soviet propaganda binge about US “racial terror” had forced his hand.

He acted, revealingly, more to uphold federal authority and repair the country’s international image than he did to promote racial equality. In a national televised address, he said “it would be difficult to exaggerate the harm that is being done to the prestige and influence, and indeed to the safety, of our nation and the world.” In a word, Little Rock’s resistance to desegregation was a threat to national security.

At this point, the Cold War logic of civil rights became nearly irreversible.

***

The ensuing Kennedy and Johnson administrations would finalize Jim Crow’s demise.

Unlike the Democratic presidents preceding and succeeding him, John F. Kennedy entered the White House without strong feelings about civil rights.

The only Negro he had actually ever encountered up to then was his valet.

While in the Senate, he did, admittedly, take up the cause of African independence, but this was mainly a gentrified gesture of his Irish heritage rather than any genuine commitment to Negro nationalism.

Kennedy’s defining identity as a politician (if an American politician can be said to have an identity unrelated to electoral considerations) was anti-Communism (this wretched liberal ideology dear to both the American right and left, as well as to not a few WN), which he had inherited from the great Joseph McCarthy. Indeed, his fierce anti-Communism made his administration the most dangerous in the history of the Cold War.

Like other Democrats of the period, he paid formal lip service to a moderate version of civil rights, though he had a poor record of support for it in the Senate. His main concern was that both segregationists and desegregationalists seemed almost indifferent to the issue of Communism.

For the first two and a half years of his administration he accordingly refused to offer any real leadership on the issue of civil rights.

The accelerating conflict in the South, however, would not long allow this inaction.

There was something ironic in this.

Kennedy’s election had signalled not only a generational turn in American politics, it was widely felt as if it had ushered in a new spirit in American life. His “youth and charisma,” combined with the fact that he was the first Catholic to hold the office, seemed to herald the advent of a new era. Though the “Sixties,” as a distinct political-cultural period, did not actually begin until about 1964 or 1965, his election was its prelude.

This was especially evident in the gathering momentum of the civil rights movement, which was beginning to move out of the courts and into the streets.

In Eisenhower’s last year in office, civil rights organizations had staged sit-ins, with great fanfare, at segregated lunch counters in Greensboro, North Carolina, inaugurating the age of mass civil disobedience. By August 1961, over 70,000 people are estimated to have participated in these sit-ins, which were expanded to include various other segregated public facilities.

Then in May 1961, “Freedom Riders” started challenging discrimination in interstate transit, which the courts had earlier rule to be unconstitutional. Given the violence, demonstrations, and TV coverage that accompanied the Freedom Riders, they proved to be a distinct embarrassment to the new administration.

Kennedy, who was planning to meet Khrushchev in Vienna, also feared they were making him look weak and vulnerable in the international media. He condemned the Freedom Riders as “unpatriotic,” tarnishing the nation’s image at the very moment when he was about to make an entrance on the world stage.

His problems with the burgeoning civil rights movement were, however, just beginning.

In September 1962 he faced another major racial crisis, this time at the University of Mississippi, where large crowds of angry whites sought to prevent the court-ordered admission of the Negro James Meredith.

With the campus beset with riots, violence, death, and gun fire, Kennedy, like Eisenhower before him, was forced to intervene. He sent in several hundred federal marshals and then federalized the Mississippi National Guard — ultimately, to stop the TV images and the unfavorable international coverage.

Then, in May 1963, the impact of race on US international politics came to a head in Birmingham, Alabama, where Bull Connor (who would inspire Hollywood’s image of the pudgy, brutal Southern sheriff) turned high-pressure fire hoses and police dogs on a thousand black civil rights’ marchers.

The vivid images of “peaceful blacks” being assaulted by “Nazi-like” police made for spectacular television. The Soviets had a field day and global opinion turned hostile.

A few weeks later, George Wallace — whose earlier campaign slogan was “Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!” — also defied the federal government, preventing the integration of the University of Alabama, creating, in the process, another worldwide TV spectacle.

Kennedy again sent in federal marshals, but at this point he decided that something needed to be done to get these embarrassing protests out of the streets and back into the courts, where they could be controlled. The result was his decision in June 1963 to submit a comprehensive civil rights bill to Congress that would outlaw all public forms of segregation.

Passed after his assassination, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would mark the impending demise of Jim Crow.

In this struggle, racial equality and civil rights inevitably became an integral facet of the larger ideological struggle.

This was due to the fact that “the world [was] no longer white.”

Once Europe had been reduced to rubble, its prestige in, as well as its hold on its overseas empire was everywhere weakened. The nonwhites of these former European governed lands became, as such, a “constituency” to be won by rival liberal or Communist cold warriors.

In 1947, India, the world’s second largest “nation,” achieved independence, soon followed Indonesia. By the end of Truman’s administration (March 1953), most of Asia and the Middle East had freed itself of European domination. Africa would follow in the late 1950s and early ’60s.

In this new era, to maintain America’s leadership of the non-Communist “free world,” Americans could no longer ignore (or control) the world’s nonwhite majority.

The Cold War, as a consequence, would be fought largely for the hearts and minds of the former colonial world (what a French journalist in 1955 called the “Third World”).

Truman, like most of the early cold warriors, was not exactly a racial egalitarian. As a Missourian, whose heritage was more Southern than Midwestern, he was not without racial “prejudice,” though in the course of his Senate career, he came to support anti-lynching legislation and the abolition of poll taxes. It was Cold War imperatives, however, that made him into a forthright proponent of “civil rights.”

Most of Truman’s top advisers, including the “Wise Men” who helped him create the Cold War state, came from the old WASP elite and tended to be racial conservatives (contemptuous not only of Negroes, but of Jews). Though at times sympathetic to Southern concerns and with no particular affection for “the poor Negro” of liberal imagination, they too would be forced to embrace the cause of civil rights — linked, as it was, to the Cold War.

In this anti-Communist war it waged, the United States was now obliged to demonstrate that historic white racism was not part of its international anti-Communist coalition.

Anti-racism, as a result, became almost as important to US international interests as anti-Communism.

This was especially the case since the Soviets were adept at making hay out of American racial practices. In 1946, for example, when Truman’s Secretary of State, James Byrnes, denounced Communists for denying certain East Europeans voting rights, they retorted that Negroes in Byrnes’ home state of South Carolina, as well as throughout the rest of the American South, were similarly and less justifiably denied voting rights.

This would not be the only time that Byrnes was made to look like a fool.

Then, as the machinery of the Cold War was put in place, the Soviets’ anti-US rhetoric increasingly made American racial practice the centerpiece of their propaganda, which put the US on the defensive.

This would again be the case, when later, as US bombing runs over North Korea and then North Vietnam killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, the Soviets linked “the American way of waging war” to the “oppression of colored people in the US,” (which, of course, ignored the fact that Anglo-American bombers had earlier killed 900,000 German civilians, as well as many tens of thousands of French, Belgium, Dutch, Italian, and other European civilians — often doing so intentionally, striving to kill the largest possible number of innocents).

Given US claims to the mantle of the “Free World’s” leadership and the nonwhite world’s new definition of itself in terms hostile to the white man’s former attitude to it, the American color bar would henceforth be subject to unprecedented international scrutiny. Every headline reporting a lynching or another Southern effort to shore up Jim Crow took, as a consequence, a toll on America’s international standing.

One US ambassador described the country’s race problem as its “Achilles’ heel,” another called it “the greatest propaganda gift that could be given to the Kremlin,” and a third asked: “How can we persuade these Africans and Asians . . . that we believe in human dignity when we deny our own citizens the right to this basic dignity on the basis of skin color?”

In this struggle between the “Communist East” and the “liberal West,” Truman’s cold warriors had now to keep the nonwhite “South” allied with the white “North.”

US foreign relations, it followed, would no longer be insulated from the nation’s race relations.

Numerous propaganda agencies were specifically created to counter Soviet propaganda and to tell a “story” not of racial equality (which evidently didn’t exist), but of on-going racial progress. The United States Information Agency (USIF) — with its vast array of radio stations, printed materials, and foreign-based “America Houses” — endeavored, thus, to put a different spin on US race relations.

Propaganda, however, was not enough.

***

All the major US Cold War initiatives of the late 1940s — the Truman Doctrine (1947), the Marshall Plan (1948), NATO (1949), NSC 68 (1950) — emerged against mounting demands for racial equality, in the US and abroad.

Truman, accordingly, would be the first president to make civil rights a concern of his administration.

In 1946, he formed a President’s Committee on Civil Rights, staffed with liberals, which reported that a major reform in race relations was needed to fight the Cold War, that on-going discrimination was undermining US diplomacy, and that the US had to take account of what “the world thinks of us and our record.”

He also urged Congress to enact civil rights laws to establish a permanent committee on civil rights, to outlaw lynching, and to protect the right to vote.

Because Southerners stymied him in Congress, he turned to executive orders to promote reforms and, at the same time, involved his Justice Department in various desegregation litigations.

His most important civil rights’ “accomplishment” was, unquestionably, his executive order of June 1948 to desegregate the army and the civil service.

It wasn’t until the Korea War, however, when manpower shortages compelled commanders to actively implement it, that the army actually began to desegregate and not until 1955 that the process was completed. It was nevertheless the most consequential step toward racial equality yet taken.

As a politician sensitive to the negative electoral implications of civil rights, he, of course, didn’t want to alienate the Southern base of the Democratic Party. But here he failed. Rather naively, he thought the introduction of a pro-civil rights plank in the Democratic Party program wouldn’t upset the party’s Southern wing (given that party programs are usually forgotten the moment the votes are counted). He was wrong: The Dixiecrats bolted and formed a States’ Rights Party (the first step toward the South’s eventual abandonment of the Democratic Party).

But once he was free of the Dixiecrats, he could openly court the black northern vote. During the campaign, he was not particularly outspoken on civil rights, knowing that northern whites weren’t much different than Southerners in this respect.

But he did become the first president to address a national convention of the NAACP and the first to campaign in Harlem, where he said: “Democracy’s answer to the challenges of [Communist] totalitarianism is its promise of equal rights and equal opportunities for all mankind” (not mentioning, of course, that such rights and opportunities were meaningful only among peoples of similar natural endowment).

In November 1948, in winning the vast majority of the black vote, he captured the White House with the narrowest of margins.

Given Congress’ on-going resistance to civil rights reform, Truman increasingly looked to the courts, especially the Supreme Court, which had already ruled against segregated interstate transportation (1946) and showed a willingness to play a role in the Cold War of ideas.

In 1948 Truman’s Justice Department filed amicus curiae briefs in the Shelley v. Kraemer case that struck down housing covenants. In 1949 it intervened in Henderson v. United States to prohibit segregation in railroad transportation. In the same year it participated in cases challenging school desegregation — McLaurin v. Oklahoma and Sweatt v. Painter. Finally, in December 1952, it intervened in the Brown v. Board of Education case (resolved in 1954).

In each of these cases, Truman’s State Department stressed their national security implications, an argument for which the court had already shown sympathy.

By the time the little cold warrior left office, Jim Crow’s days were numbered: The military had been desegregated, the Democratic Party had gone on record for racial equality, and judicial interventions had begun to lower the legal barriers to discrimination.

Selling the Cold War: A Racially-Integrated America Menaced by White Russian Communists

“The world is white no longer.”
– James Baldwin

For white nationalists — whose cyber-based “movement” is still in its infancy — simple explanations tend to be the rule.

The reductionist “anti-Semitism” that dominates WN ranks and serves as a catch-all explanation for the predicament white people find themselves in today, to cite the most prominent example, is wont to attribute every assault on white life to Jewish perfidy.

There is, certainly, no disputing the existence of this “perfidy,” for no other group — not the browns or blacks, not the former powers of international Communism, not anyone or anything — is or has been so disposed to breaching the color line, undermining America’s traditional racial hierarchy, or propelling the processes responsible for the present dispossession of the country’s white majority.

To think, however, that Organized Jewry has been the alpha and omega of this dispossession is not just simple-minded, it’s dishonorable.

It’s simple-minded because it understands complex historical processes in Kindergarten terms. It ignores other, no less culpable factors.

More fundamentally, it ignores or conflates the differences between structural imperatives and conspiratorial designs, between concrete objective forces and the subjective influences of interest and conscience.

History, as such, offers few cases where monocausal explanations suffice, for the confluence of fortune, structure, and subject (fortuna, necessita, virtu) undergirding the historical process means that significant historical changes are almost always the consequence of a combination of forces unique to their specific time and place.

By the same reasoning, monocausal explanations focusing exclusively on a demonized “other” are dishonorable because they spare whites all responsibility for their misfortunes, refuse to acknowledge the dysgenic and self-destructive forces indigenous to modern society, and ignore the numerous, inherently Jewish facets of the American project.

In criticizing this, I do so not to absolve the Jews, but to preface the subject of this essay — the anti-white consequences of the Cold War — which offers a somewhat broader explanation of white dispossession (though there are at least a couple of others that can also be made).

***

The Second World War was a watershed event in both American and world history.

It changed not only America’s relationship with the rest of the world, it fundamentally changed America.

Thomas Hart Benton, "Negro Soldier," 1942

The struggle against National Socialist Germany (despite the racial character of the Pacific War against the “Japs”) was ideologically waged as a war against fascism and racism.

As the unadmirable Gunnar Myrdal wrote in 1944, “In fighting fascism and racism, America had to stand before the whole world in favor of racial tolerance and . . . racial equality.”

Its international crusade for liberal ideals stood, though, in obvious contradiction to the exclusion of various colored peoples, blacks particularly, who were denied a place in the country’s political and social firmament — denied because whites wanted a white nation, like other Europeans.

Myrdal called this supposed contradiction between its ideals and practices the “American Dilemma.”

It would become especially conspicuous after 1945, when America’s newly assumed international role left it with numerous, new obligations that drew attention to its so-called “dilemma” (which, in actuality, was a dilemma of American liberalism).

The war, moreover, changed not just the prevailing Zeitgeist.

The colossal undertaking to put 13 million men in uniform, to arm them (and the allies), and to fight on several different fronts in distant parts of the world required a national mobilization of unprecedented scope.

The war, it followed, brought great dislocations, disrupting traditional social relations and forcing the alteration of many traditional attitudes.

America’s democratic crusade against “German racism” also brought millions of blacks north to work in defense plants. This had a major impact on housing and employment. It also heightened black self-confidence, freed them from the older Southern forms of race relations, and emboldened their challenge to white supremacy. This became especially evident in 1943, when 200 race riots flared up in more than forty-five American cities, anticipating the contentious racial battles of the postwar era, especially those of the 1960s and ’70s.

At the same time, a million negroes were drafted into the military.

Though the army remained segregated, it quickly discovered the inefficiency and expense of maintaining separate facilities. It was even forced, whenever the exhausted, ill-supplied, and depleted forces of the Wehrmacht beat back the unheroic GIs, to bypass its segregated practices and throw in blacks troops to support decimated or beleaguered white units.

Black veterans, relatedly, provided many of the shock troops that would assault Jim Crow after 1945.

These developments — combined with the retreat of “scientific racism” in the 1930s, the wartime expansion of the New Deal state, the defeat and demonization of German anti-liberalism, and the Cold War’s ensuing crusade for democracy and equality — would together undermine much of the legitimacy of traditional American racial practices.

As one Alabama governor (Frank Dixon) rather tendentiously put it (and only a Southerner could make this argument with a straight face), “The Huns have wrecked the theory of the master race.”

***

Following the war, American power in the world was supreme, unchallenged, except by the Soviet Union, which, after having lost 27 million Russians in the course of the war (compared to 250,000 US combat deaths), was not actually in a position to defy the new superpower, though its unwillingness to submit to Washington’s tutelage would automatically cast it as a potential rival.

At this pivotal historical moment, when the whole world lay prostrate before them, American leaders felt as if they had been granted the Mandate of Heaven.

Inspired by the biblical Zionism of their Puritan heritage and encouraged by the economic self-interests of the great corporations, these leaders would reshape the international arena to reflect and serve the interests of American democracy and capitalism (each the economic or ideological mirror of the other).

Before even the war’s end, New Deal planners had developed the programs and trained the personnel who would occupy Germany, Italy, and (they thought) France and integrate them into the new American-led Atlantic “coalition”; Britain had earlier been deprived of its sovereignty and integrated. At the same time, a host of American-created international organizations — especially the United Nations, whose 1945 Charter committed its members to opposing racial discrimination — were designed to ensure the American governance of this new international order.

It was left, thought, to the administration of Harry S. Truman, the architect of the Cold War, to mould the exact contours of this order.

***

Russian-Americans relations had soured in the closing phase of the war, as political differences became more important than strategic ones. By 1946 they were engaged in a war of words, with the Soviets countering American claims of tyranny by pointing to lynchings, poll taxes, and other facets of Jim Crow to expose the fraudulence of America’s democratic-egalitarian ideology.

By 1947, with the announcement of the Truman Doctrine to fight the international forces of Communist subversion, a Cold War, which would last until 1989, was implicitly declared.

In many respects, this was a phony war.

A severely exhausted and crippled Soviet Union posed no threat to the US.

But this phony war had become a political necessity for US leaders.

The New Deal, which arose in response to the breakdown of liberal capitalism in 1929, had failed (unlike Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany) to fix the depressed economy. It was only with the advent of “Defense Preparations” in 1939 and the war economy after 1941 that the American economy began to rebound.

The most pressing concern of liberal democrats after 1945 was thus avoiding another economic collapse — which meant on-going defense preparations and continued government intervention in the economy.

To justify this New-Deal created “Pentagon capitalism,” as well as a National Security State to oversee it, it was necessary, however, “to scare the hell out of the American people.”

Hence the ensuing transformation of good old “Uncle Joe” (Stalin) into the great bogeyman bent on enslaving the world.

To be continued . . .