• MISSION STATEMENT
  • TERMS
  • PRIVACY
The Occidental Observer
  • HOME
  • BLOG
  • SUBSCRIBE TOQ
  • CONTACT USPlease send all letters to the editor, manuscripts, promotional materials, and subscription questions to Editors@TheOccidentalObserver.net.
  • DONATE
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy

The Jonathan Bowden: The Messiah, the Chosen One?

March 21, 2025/in Featured Articles, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy/by Edward Dutton

“Execute, burn, kill the heretic!” In Monty Python’s The Life of Brian, this is the reaction of one of Brian’s zealous followers to a hermit, whose vow of silence was broken by Brian landing on his foot, dissenting from the view that Brian is “the Messiah, the chosen one.” When religions of this kind, based around the worship of an individual, begin then we normally refer to them as “cults” or, less pejoratively, as “New Religious Movements.” It is telling that the John Cleese character who condemns the hermit earlier informs Brian, who declares that he is not the Messiah, that, “I say you are, Lord, and I should know. I’ve followed a few.” This man is the archetypal “seeker” — he is searching for someone to follow, for somebody who will provide his life with eternal meaning — and, as I will show, there is a specific kind of psychology associated with being a “seeker.”

Now, you might be asking why I am writing about this in a nationalist webzine. How can New Religious Movements, let alone a minor character in The Life of Brian, possibly be relevant? Well, having gone off on a tangent, allow me, like Jonathan Bowden, to bring everything back to the key point: Jonathan Bowden himself. I recently published his biography — Shaman of the New Right: The Life and Mind of Jonathan Bowden. In this book, I directly stated that, for some people on the right, Bowden has become imbued with something of the holy. Well, I have now become a heretic for writing a biography rather than a hagiography.

I actually pre-empted this reaction in the book. Bowden’s good friend Adrian Davies, whom I interviewed about Bowden on The Jolly Heretic in 2022, was as shocked as I was when someone in the live stream accused him of creating a “Bowden hit piece” simply for recounting his own experiences of his friend. Davies and I later discussed how there was clearly, “The Bowden of History and Bowden of Faith.” When I interviewed former British National Party chairman Nick Griffin — he knew Bowden well because he appointed him the party’s Cultural Officer — Griffin warned me off writing the biography at all, informing me that a truthful account of Bowden’s life would subtract from the mystery that is so attractive to his followers, would inevitably upset these people and, anyway, they are the kind to become upset because Bowden “sold impossible dreams to people . . . and is popular among Incels.” Incels have been shown to be high in mental instability and Dark Triad traits, such as psychopathy and Narcissism; hence their being unattractive to girls.

With these remarks, Griffin was extremely prescient. Many of Bowden’s friends, including the sole beneficiary of his will, asked me to write the biography. I thought I would be attacked as blasphemer for so-doing and this is precisely what has happened. It began last week with an Amazon review of the book, which has since disappeared for some reason, but of which I kept a screen shot. “Ian Thompson” described the book as “Nonsensical” and continued:

Did the author even talk to Bowden’s best friend and beneficiary of his Will [sic.]. Did he even look at his Last Will & Testament [sic.]. Thought not. How you write a biography on a man you never met, never spoke to his family or close friends is beyond understand [sic.]. Just a money making exercise in self promotion on the author’s part [sic.]. Far too expensive, don’t waste your money. I haven’t. I knew the man, one of the few who was invited into his home, so won’t read the book [sic.]. One more thing. If Jonathan created a myth around him, he had a very good reason.

This is obviously a reflection of extreme emotion, leading to impulsivity and a lack of logical thinking: Can we not write Plato’s biography because we haven’t met him? Had “Ian Thompson” read the book, he would know that I did interview Bowden’s beneficiary (Michael Woodbridge), I did obtain his will, and I did speak to his close friends, including one who was invited into his home. Mysteriously, the same reviewer then completely changed his review — presumably because he read a summary of the book somewhere; he was not a “verified purchase” — and altered his method of attack. Alas, I did not keep a screen shot and he seems to have deleted it, but, in essence, he declared “shame” on all those who were prepared to be interviewed; they weren’t Bowden’s true friends and that the book is “a character assassination of a good man.”

When I remarked on the first review on Twitter, someone called “Julius” exclaimed, “You piss on the graves of better men in order to get attention from left wing media. You should die of shame” while the “Traditional Britain Group” remarked that, “Yes, when Gregory a TBG VP made some relatively mild criticisms in an interview a year back, based upon his personal recollections a bunch of groupies here became both spiteful and hysterical. I blocked them all. They obviously operate under a very simplistic and comic book view of human nature.” They were referring to Gregory Lauder-Frost, whom I interviewed for the biography and who knew Bowden.

Beneath my interview about the book on the podcast “History Sessions,” someone called “Jackdoe4632” declared, “Perhaps Jonathan gave his reasons to his genuine friends (not Renouf or Woodbridge who crave attention and notoriety). His loyal friends, those whom he trusted and have not betrayed him in death, are keeping his confidences and protecting his memory. . . . The people you spoke to were merely acquaintances.” So, the sole beneficiary of Bowden’s will and Lady Renouf, to whom Bowden fled when he went mad and thought people were trying to kill him, were “merely acquaintances,” but this internet anon was Bowden’s true best friend?

On the podcast “Scrumpmonkey,” where I was interviewed about the book, I was attacked with fallacious arguments continuously by a troll called “Jo-os3vp” who, in particular, asserted that: “Bowden would have hated this disrespectful and exploitative ‘biography’ with a passion. I don’t expect its zero-empathy author to understand that. Some people can’t just listen to a man’s words, they are more interested in deconstructing his character and digging up dirt on his private life.” The implication seems to be that Bowden is so holy that an accurate biography simply shouldn’t be written at all. As with Incels, studies indicate that trolls are high in sadism and psychopathy: The “empathy” remark is clear projection, as was much else.

As a person who is interested, as I hope my readers are, in finding out the truth about how Bowden became an oratorical genius, I find this attitude beyond comprehension. But it makes sense if we look into the psychology behind New Religious Movements, which crosses over with aspects of the extreme “far right.” As I explore in Shaman of the Radical Right, such people are, on average, highly mentally unstable. They experience negative feelings very strongly, including low self-esteem, predicting periods of religious or political fervour.

To deal with this, they sometimes latch on to charismatics who seem to make their cold world feel warm again. These charismatics become an extension of themselves; a central component to their identity: “Bowden is brilliant and I am brilliant because I follow him.” When people are stressed they instinctively think in a black-and-white fashion; they lose nuance and either love or hate. They also create a kind of false self, via this method, where they suppress their negative feelings and see themselves as superior to the herd: they are purer, more intelligent and more moral.

If you criticise Bowden in any way, then you are attacking them; you are taking away that which allows them to suppress their intense negative feelings, and you are confronting them with the black-and-white, low-intelligence manner in which they think. They have been gulled by Bowden, in a sense. Hence you are creating Narcissistic injury and cognitive dissonance. This leads to negative feelings which must be dealt with by attacking the messenger.

It may also be, if Nick Griffin is right, that some of Bowden’s followers identify with Bowden, even if only unconsciously, because he’s rather like them. I don’t mean in the sense that Bowden was an amazingly talented and highly intelligent charismatic, but that he was evidently unsuccessful in many aspects of his life: never had a job, was a university drop out, never really had a serious relationship, didn’t have any money and told lots of lies. Some of his followers may realise that this is true of them — which is incongruous with their false self — but may cope with that by telling themselves: “At least I’m super-red-pilled.”

In being confronted with the truth about Bowden, they are being confronted with the truth about themselves, and this is most unpalatable to mentally unstable types who cope by developing Narcissistic traits. Bowden understood that geniuses are “like specials needs but the other way round” and will inherently be flawed in “normal” aspects of life, as Bowden knew he was. But unlike with Bowden, there is no “genius” dimension to these people, so all they can do is bitterly attack the messenger in order to try to claw back a modicum of self-worth by experiencing the power that you may feel when you are unpleasant to someone.

But unpleasant as they may be, they are fascinating. It is cliché, in right-wing circle, to talk of the posthumous “Cult of Jonathan Bowden” and the very word “cult” has long been employed beyond the religious realm, as in Monty Python having a “cult following.” But with some of the people I have encountered of late, we are able to watch a far more literal “personality cult” develop in real time; a “Bowden of Faith” is coming together before our eyes.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Edward Dutton https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Edward Dutton2025-03-21 08:15:302025-03-21 08:15:30The Jonathan Bowden: The Messiah, the Chosen One?

Supreme Ct. Filing Exposes How Charlottesville Officials Enabled 2017 Violence to Suppress Speech

March 14, 2025/6 Comments/in Unite the Right, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy/by Warren Balogh

Warren Balogh, who has written for The Occidental Observer, is an important activist for our cause. This article is about his effort to get the Supreme Court to rule that the city of Charlottesville plotted to shut down a planned peaceful rally by allowing unfettered violence by the left. This article originally appeared in The Gateway Pundit.

A new Supreme Court petition filed by political activist Warren Balogh sheds light on what he calls the ‘intentional dereliction of duty’ by Charlottesville officials during the infamous 2017 “Unite the Right” rally. The petition, appealing a lower court decision from the Fourth Circuit, raises serious constitutional questions about whether local governments can deliberately allow chaos and violence as a means of suppressing speech they dislike.

Balogh is a self-described ‘pro-white’ activist. Far-left groups use a variety of labels to describe him as a ‘white nationalist’ and other such defamatory terms. Balogh says he was at the Charlottesville rally for only one purpose: to oppose the destruction of a historical monument. The Lee monument was destroyed in 2023, despite promises by officials it would be relocated.

Balogh is appealing the Fourth Circuit’s dismissal of his claims, as part of Balogh v. Virginia, 120 F.4th 127. That appeal was decided by Chief Judge Albert Diaz, an Obama appointee. That court said that because the participants engaged in violence, they were not entitled to protection from the police, a ruling at odds with the evidence in the case.

You can read the request for Supreme Court review here.

ALLEGATION: GOVERNMENT DELIBERATELY SOUGHT VIOLENCE

The “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville became a flashpoint in American political history, but according to this Supreme Court filing, the event was doomed from the start—not by the protestors, but by the city’s leadership. The lawsuit argues that Charlottesville police officers were ordered to “stand down” while violent far-left Antifa counter-protesters clashed with demonstrators, ensuring the event spiraled into disorder.

Balogh’s legal team alleges that city officials knowingly refused to maintain public order, allowing Antifa-aligned groups to provoke violence. The filing contends that this deliberate inaction was a strategy—the violence created a pretext for shutting down the protest and blaming the right-wing demonstrators.

This point has been confirmed in prior Gateway Pundit reporting, where previously-unseen drone footage from the day of the event shows that the pro-Lee-statue protesters were being attacked and abused and were refusing to fight back. The far-left, on the other hand, was allowed to get away with anything they wanted, even when crimes were committed in front of police officers.

Far-left Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe even bragged about telling the police to ‘stand down’ in his book, on page 95, about the Charlottesville event. This was done by ‘screwing protocol’ in his words, and declaring a state emergency and demanding the park be cleared. “The critical thing here,” Balogh told the Gateway Pundit, “is that the police only attacked the right-wing protesters. They didn’t clear streets of the Antifa protesters waving Communist flags, they came only at the right-wing protesters. Governor McAuliffe was a top Clinton fundraiser, a corrupt member of left-wing elites, and they saw this as revenge against Donald Trump’s supporters. Hillary’s fundraiser’s agenda was to invent violence to shut down a peaceful rally. This was nothing but woke overreach.”

“They drove us into Market Street, they drove us into Antifa. I got attacked twice that day. The first time was in Lee Park when I got sprayed in the face with riot-grade pepper spray as the police pushed us out of the park, where we had a permit. Then when I was half-blinded by police, I got clubbed from behind by a masked member of Antifa. We were pushed out into the street to get us to fight with Antifa.”

LEGAL QUESTIONS BEFORE THE COURT

The Supreme Court petition asks the justices to weigh in on several major constitutional issues:

  1. Does the First Amendment protect speech even when local governments deliberately allow violence to erupt as a justification for suppression?
  2. Can police officers who intentionally refuse to maintain order—while knowing their inaction will lead to violence—hide behind qualified immunity, a legal theory that makes them immune from lawsuits?
  3. Should municipalities be held accountable under Supreme Court precedent (Monell v. Department of Social Services) when their top officials orchestrate conditions that violate constitutional rights?

The case hinges on whether government officials can manipulate violent conditions to crack down on speech they oppose, a dangerous precedent if left unchecked according to Balogh.

ALLEGATION: GOVT. WANTED VIOLENCE TO JUSTIFY SHUTTING DOWN PROTEST

The petition argues that Charlottesville officials, led by Police Chief Al Thomas and Lieutenant Becky Crannis-Curl, took active steps to fuel tensions. Instead of enforcing the rule of law, the lawsuit alleges, they allowed left-wing extremists to run amok, ensuring that the right-wing protesters could be blamed for the resulting chaos.

Evidence cited in the filing suggests that the police:

  • Stood down and refused to intervene as violence erupted.
  • Blocked exit routes, preventing protestors from leaving safely.
  • Waited until the situation was out of control before shutting down the rally entirely.

The consequences were tragic. In the aftermath, the media and political establishment used the day’s events to falsely frame the entire rally as right-wing violence, a narrative still echoed today.

COURTS KEEP DISMISSING CRITICAL FREE SPEECH CASE

Lower courts have largely dismissed Balogh’s claims, relying on the legal shield of qualified immunity—a doctrine that often protects government officials from lawsuits unless a clear precedent has already established their actions as unconstitutional.

“I went there to support the Robert E. Lee statue that day,” said Balogh. “I went there peacefully. I had no weapons, no body armor, we were a group of people who were proud of our history and didn’t want the woke mob to use ISIS-tactics to destroy the memory of people and events. That’s why we were there, and we were attacked by the government for expressing our free speech. We could have defended ourselves against Antifa, but we couldn’t also fight the police and the National Guard, and that’s what we were facing.”

The Supreme Court has in past cases ruled that police must make reasonable efforts to protect speech, even in contentious situations. The petition argues that the Fourth Circuit ignored key Supreme Court rulings, including Terminiello v. Chicago, where the Court upheld the principle that speech cannot be suppressed simply because it provokes hostility.

The City had previously tried to allow left-wing protesters who wanted to tear down the statue of Robert E. Lee, but to deny permits to protesters who wanted to protect the Lee statue. This was the basis of litigation prior to the “Unite the Right” rally where the city wanted to allow one viewpoint over another, and a federal judge, Glen E. Conrad, did not allow the government to allow one viewpoint or another.

What Balogh alleges is that, as a way to defy the judiciary, the court’s rulings, and the Constitution, the government conspired to create the violence necessary to justify shutting down the protest anyway.

Balogh’s legal team also points to conflicting rulings from other circuits, where courts have ruled that government actors cannot enable violent mobs as an excuse to silence unpopular opinions. The Fourth Circuit’s ruling runs contrary to these precedents, making it ripe for Supreme Court review.

LITIGANTS: GOVT. SHOULDN’T BE ABLE TO CREATE VIOLENCE TO SILENCE SPEAKERS & SPEECH IT DISLIKES

The implications of this case extend far beyond Charlottesville. If local governments can intentionally refuse to enforce the law to suppress speech, then the First Amendment is effectively meaningless.

If the Supreme Court takes up the case and rules in favor of Balogh, it could establish a major precedent preventing state and local governments from using orchestrated chaos as a weapon against speech they oppose. It would also put law enforcement on notice that standing down in the face of political violence is not an acceptable strategy.

The Gateway Pundit was sued for defamation by one of the rally participants, Brennan Gilmore. In the course of the case, discovery revealed that the Department of Justice’s controversial “Civil Rights Division” was on-site several days prior to the “Unite the Right” rally. In addition, the City had hired multiple major press firms, one of which it didn’t end up using at all.

Even more explosively, discovery received by the Gateway Pundit in that litigation revealed that the Department of Justice’s agents on the ground in Charlottesville were coordinating on the morning of the rally with a Vice President of the World Bank. These phone logs suggest that an extensive, vast, deep state operation was underway to create violence at the Charlottesville rally, use the violence as a way to smear President Trump, and also as a major political operation underway to advance a far-left agenda.

That major deep state effort would also explain why the prosecutions of those arrested at Charlottesville were so extreme and politically charged. James Fields hit Heather Heyer with his vehicle while attempting to leave town. State and Federal prosecutors alleged it was domestic terrorism, even though it was clearly a case of vehicular manslaughter, where Heyer died of a heart attack having been trampled by the crowd after Fields crashed into a series of cars being swarmed by a left-wing mob. Fields was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole plus 419 years in prison on the state charges. Federal prosecutors then threatened to bring the death penalty against him, and coerced Fields into accepting a plea on federal charges which saw a concurrent life imprisonment sentence without the possibility of parole.

Balogh makes that point even blunter, “There was a plan to shut it all down from the beginning, and Heather Heyer would be alive today if the police did their jobs that day. The government set the stage for what happened, and their reckless plan caused everything that resulted. Fields should be freed.”

The Charlottesville riots were a turning point in modern American politics, used to justify an unprecedented crackdown on free speech and political dissent. Now, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to correct the record and send a clear message: government officials cannot use violent mobs as a tool to silence opposition.

Balogh’s fight is about the future of free speech in America. The Supreme Court takes up very few cases every year, typically 100-150 of the 10,000 application it receives. The Court is likely loathe to stand up for what it perceives as controversial speakers, but the case presents the chance to strike down the trend of the government abusing the law, and abusing law enforcement, to shut down speakers it dislikes.

Despite the odds, Balogh is encouraged by the simple fact of preserving a record of what happened at Charlottesville. “I don’t have any illusions about whether the Court will have the courage to take this case. But I’ve put the evidence on the record, and the filings speak for themselves,” he said. “I want to set the record straight about what happened at Charlottesville, and the injustice done to peaceful protesters who were attacked by the police and the government as we tried to demonstrate against the destruction of our history and monuments. The court may be cowards, the cops and politicians might be hopelessly corrupt, and the media may be liars, but these filings tell the truth.”

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Warren Balogh https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Warren Balogh2025-03-14 07:42:232025-03-14 07:50:39Supreme Ct. Filing Exposes How Charlottesville Officials Enabled 2017 Violence to Suppress Speech

Destination 1982: Wilmot Robertson’s “Ventilations” Then and Now — Part 2 of 2

January 28, 2025/5 Comments/in Featured Articles, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy/by Sigurd Kristensen

Go to Part 1.

4598 words

Reshaping and Reordering a Decadent United States

Clearly, “Kosher conservatism” is what we today call neoconservatism (and neocons). “Militant liberalism” certainly foreshadowed the feminism, DEI, LGBTQ+, illegal immigration, BLM, critical race theory, global warming and ESG (environmental, social, governance) movements that have divided (and conquered?) this country’s people. Robertson was on to something! While all these movements probably could be called “Kosher” or “Kosher certified,” we probably won’t hear that description from the Trump GOP party as it postures now with a reactionary pushback to the Left. You can, though, find the collaborations from author Scott Howard, who Robertson surely would have supported in the hypotheses of his two books, The Transgender-Industrial Complex and The Open Society Play-Book.

Before the convenience or the computer information age, Robertson’s Ventilations made a valiant effort at connecting the dots of the previous decade and expanding his TDM critique of Jewish power and influence. Before leaving this first chapter, here are some of his interesting takes:

  • The alliance of liberalism, equalitarianism and social Christianity has done more to weaken America in the last thirty years than all the machinations of all the Communist spy rings since 1917.

  • “If [old-line anti-Communists] want to see something Jewish and really conspiratorial all they have to do is turn on their TV sets.”

  • The low standard of living in Russia has also prevented any fanatic emphasis on the ‘good life’ and the soul-dampening materialism that automatically goes with such a philosophy. … In Short, the Russians are the modern Barbarians at the Gate, and we are somewhat in the position of the Romans. Rome [was] not destroyed by Germanic incursions until the internal rot had made resistance all but impossible.

  • We must attempt to root out the infection [i.e., the “disease that now grips America”] before it spreads throughout the American social organism.

  • The Soviet leadership … does not wish a showdown with world Jewry. Whenever Jewish propaganda gets too ruthless and overwhelming, Russia makes a few concessions. Whenever Jewish racial fury provokes some new outrage against Lebanon or some other Middle Eastern country, Russia supports the Arabs, but not to the point of brinksmanship. (my emphasis; consider Russia’s latest yielding on Syria as avoiding brinksmanship)

  • Meanwhile, to prepare the Soviet masses for a stronger line against the Israelis, the state-owned publishing houses release a series of books whose anti-Zionism can hardly be distinguished from czarist anti-Semitism.

Ventilations hit hard on the geopolitical events of the sixties, seventies, and early eighties. It gave a strong, condescending update to his conservative followers on the role of Jewry in Soviet Russia, and reported on the beginnings of American domestic agitation and cultural degeneracy. The final wisdom of this first chapter harks eerily close to today’s shaky predicaments and the warmongering towards World War III:

[If] Americans can be talked into pouring billions of dollars a year into armaments for Israel and cutting themselves off from Arab oil by fostering Jewish racism in the Near East, if Americans continue to act as the moral lepers of modern history by furnishing the weapons for the destruction of Egyptian cities (in the 1967 war), Lebanese villages and Iraqi reactors, then half of Russia’s military problem will be solved. Then Dostoyevsky’s farfetched dream of a Russian colossus astride the four corners of the earth will become less farfetched with every passing day.

On Religion and Social Sciences

Wilmot Robertson dishes out his attacks on Christianity, religion, and the social sciences in the second chapter of Ventilations. It is chock full of his personal insights and frank opinions — what he probably deemed as simple wisdom:

  • The few religionists who have an honest interest in our spiritual welfare offer us a god who is a mirror of our best instincts. The religionists who have more concern for ideas than people or more concern for their people than our people offer us gods who are likely to be mirror images of our worst instincts. (emphasis in the original)

  • It might be better for everyone — everyone, that is, except the religious professionals — if our faith came from the heart. But that isn’t the way religion works. … When it comes to the moral law, we prefer to lend our ear to otherworldly teachers.

  • [The] Moral Majority’s support of Zionist aggression in the Middle East, including massive attacks on civilians in Beirut, belies its name by putting  [the U.S.] on the side of immorality.

  • There is such a multitude of Christian denominations in America, such a strong tradition of church-state separation, that it would be difficult, if not impossible to obtain Christian unity for any cause. For this reason any realistic political movement should leave religious matters strictly to the private conscience.

Robertson clearly finds our Majority religion to be problematic in the way it’s been exploited to work against us in recent years. His boldest comments are found here after a short introduction that backs his hierarchical thoughts on Christianity; he notes that there are both higher and lower religions, “just as there are higher and lower civilizations and higher and lower men”:

Historians tell us that Jews were the greatest religionists. But the historians are wrong. Jews were not great religionists. They were great religious fanatics. Who else could have dreamed up such tribal deities as the genocidal Jehovah, the apocalyptic Marx and the totemistic Freud. Jews may or may not have founded the Christian sect — according the Pharisees, Jesus was a Gentile from Galilee —  but Indo-Europeans most certainly developed the higher religion known as Christianity. The composers of the greatest Christian music, the builders of the greatest Christian churches, the painters of the greatest Christian art, the expounders of the greatest Christian philosophy were not Jews. There were Indo-Europeans.

Christ may have preached to all men, but only men of the West gave him their minds as well as their hearts and remained true to him for more than fifteen hundred years. Jews anathematized him, Moslems unchurched him, Hindus ignored him, Chinese outlawed him, mestizos indigenized him, blacks syncopated him and the Soviet Union in 1917 abandoned and ridiculed him.

There is a wealth of suggestions here from Robertson on the Religion Question:

The perceptive Majority Christian who wants to preserve his religion should have only one response to the question, ‘What do we do about Christianity?’ … He must recognize that the West has provided the only biological framework in which Christianity has both prospered and endured. He must understand that, when a people’s culture is teetering on the edge of a precipice, race must be put before religion in order to save race and religion. (emphasis in the original)

He also lashes out on the social sciences working together with religious sects (“operated by minority and liberal shamans”) for “the purpose of imposing their own particular political, economic and social creeds on the Majority:

Drugs, pornography, the soaring crime rate and corruption at all levels are clear proof of the near-total failure of social scientists to spread anything more than moral nihilism, not only among their brainwashed student congregations, but among the population at large.

Robertson hopes that “the best Majority minds could recapture the social sciences and apply them to the improvement of human behavior … [thus providing] a chance of building a viable morality on empirical as well as metaphysical foundations.” But when the best of Majority minds cannot be easily discovered like Uncomfortable Conversations With A Jew can, Robertson’s third chapter gives us glimpse as to why: “The Censorship of Silence.”

Censorship In Action

Before former Louisiana State Legislature Representative Dr. David Duke had his book My Awakening banned from Amazon, before California State University-Long Beach Professor Emeritus of Psychology Dr. Kevin MacDonald, author of the famous trilogy on Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy was banned from Twitter/X (see bottom of TOO website for individual books) and most of his books banned on Amazon, before the shadow-banning of 911Pilots.org founder and bona fide whistleblower Captain Dan Hanley (on X as handle @DanHanley4) or the de-platforming of countless right wing activists from their very own YouTube channels, Wilmot Robertson experienced tremendous difficulties promoting and selling the newly published TDM because of censorship. He begins this chapter with enlightening perspective:

In the past several decades the pro and con ratio of books written about minorities has been approximately 1,000 to 1. Two prominent additions to the bulging pro-minority library, the heavily promoted The Decline of the Wasp by Peter Schrag and The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics by Michael Novak, have amounted to little more than book-length racial slurs against the Majority.

Well, while it seems in 2024 that the entire American society (mainstream media, academia and corporate world) has mainstreamed anti-White racial slurs (or at least its implicit equivalent), today’s “Conservatism Inc.” resistance is still meek and ineffective due to the average person’s lack of exposure to well-written content like Wilmot Robertson’s. He talks a great deal about the trouble he had getting reviews, and “[s]ince reviews are the life blood of the book trade, there is little or no possibility at all of an un-reviewed book coming to the attention of the general reading public without a long, laborious, year-in, year-out promotional campaign that would consume more money and time than any small publisher could possibly afford.”

Robertson explains the various pitfalls that created the literary blockade against his masterpiece. His diligent efforts to engage library officials and book critics, to place TDM on consignment at book stores, to use paid advertising in newspapers, magazines and college publications, and his attempts to get the book listed in the Literary Market Place were extremely challenging and disappointing. His pain is felt in the myriad details conveyed in this chapter, and he concludes that this marketing failure

does not prove the abrogation of freedom of thought in this country. After all, the book did get published. But in the final analysis, what good is the freedom to write, if there is very limited freedom to publicize what one has written? If America’s largest population group is to be defended effectively against a torrent of minority racist propaganda, the rights defined in the First Amendment must apply to the dissemination of ideas as well as their expression.

His moving plea here is today suppressed by the ease in which the Jewish interpretation of this right is spread and enforced: “Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of reach,”[1] says Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL.

No doubt, Robertson would not have been surprised to find this coming from the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. And although he did not specifically cite Jewish influence behind the campaign to silence his book, he did include one typewritten comment from the wife of a Jewish department store owner who returned her copy of TDM to Robertson. And he does state that her comment “does help to prove that at least some Jews take pride in the fact this censorship is so effective.” She wrote:

My pride in being an American Jew was never greater nor more profound than now, since I see where bookstores and decent Americans refuse to put your trashy literature (???) on their shelves. When you crack up, which you must eventually, maybe a Jewish psychiatrist will take pity on you and help you deal with your insanity. Too bad you’re so insanely jealous of those who have proven you less than adequate.

As is often the case, Jews take pride in their accomplishments but are utterly blind to the idea that their interests conflict with those of the Majority. Robertson adds his erudite comment on to her stinging comment:

There are many sources of pride in the human spirit, but this is surely one of the strangest, particularly in a country supposed to be a democracy and in a member of a race which is so overwhelmingly ‘liberal’.

And he finishes this chapter on censorship thus:

Members of the Cosa Nostra get away with homicide by the traditional practice of omerta. They never talk, and they see to it that witnesses never talk. The same code of silence is used very effectively by members of the publishing Mafia to murder ideas.

Forty years after Robertson published Ventilations, the Museum of Jewish Heritage—A Living Memorial to the Holocaust, hosted an event featuring Jewish historian Robert Rockaway titled “Kosher Nostra: The Life and Times of Jewish Gangsters in the United States.” One can wonder what the fallout would be if Robertson would have substituted the  term “Kosher Nostra” for “Cosa Nostra” as found in his book. One can only imagine the additional flak he would have received! We can say that we will never know, but that would be a lie. The presentation linked above is likely Jewish history intended for a Jewish audience, and goyim (i.e., non-Jews) are off-limits from making critiques on how odd it might be that a Jewish heritage site would celebrate ethnic gangsterism. But the included video presentation actually supports Robertson’s ethnic concerns when within the first seven minutes the speakers are stressing the point that large scale organized crime in America began with Jews and Italians. Of course, most Americans today only associate the Italians with the Mafia, since Jews have been the predominant producers of Hollywood’s movies and kept these details hushed.[2]  In the end, it was more than just “ideas” that were murdered in the lust for money, territory and power. During the same period that organized crime exploited the American prohibition on alcohol, Palestine and Russia were both being overtaken by the same ethnic cabal. See my articles “Destination 1922” and “Destination 1933” on these conflicts.

Other Topics Covered

A lot of ground had been covered in these first three chapters. The next ten were titled as follows: “The Loony Bin or the Great Watergate Purge,” “The High Grading of Henry Kissinger,” “Harsh Advice for Young Majority Activists,” “Productive Activity for Majority Undergraduates,” “A Search for Mental Coordinates,” “Why, for the Time Being, Nothing Much Can Be Done,” “Homage to Kemal Ataturk,” “A Second Life for Women,” and “The Utopian States of America.”

The gist of Ventilations is jointly a history lesson on the complex ways our enemies operate coupled with the guidance and advice of a guru who wishes the Majority to learn from its failings and have a fighting chance in its struggle. It is too late to ignore the mistakes of our past. And if there were ever a time to read this book, the time is now while right-leaning politics takes power in Washington, D.C. It’s  a time not to rest on one’s laurels. Robertson critiques the Majority:

We think individually when we should think collectively. We react when we should act. We whine when we should be positive and assertive. In short, we do everything but the right thing.” Incredibly, we are still immobilized by the story line the media feed us in ever larger doses. Because it says so in print, we actually believe that we are the oppressors, not the oppressed.” (my emphasis in both)

The fact is, the Majority no longer is the establishment, but the disestablishment. It no longer is an ascendant race, but a rootless agglomerate of the mentally and morally disarmed. Worst of all, it actively participates in its own downgrading.

Thinking Morally for Solutions

Robertson brings many solid points to his “search for mental coordinates,” and with his pragmatic nature he prescribes that “the Majority must begin to devise programs to put a stop to its dispossession.” Yes, a lot of today’s internet warriors might be thinking, “Easier said than done!” The opposition has over 10,000 non-profits and billions of dollars, while the racially conscious Majority has one hand’s full of charity groups, maybe a few hundred thousand dollars, and difficulty putting together a conference or hosting a dinner without getting attacked! Then again, maybe the time to attract new adherents and start up new programs really is today, after the 2024 election, where enough good people have had it with woke politics and its negative impact on traditional family life. Can today’s Majority heed Robertson’s admonitions and change for its future survival? Can they finally tolerate the scholarly writing of authors published in The Occidental Quarterly or the alternative narratives found on The Unz Review?

We must acquire the proper frame of mind…to direct the slow and difficult process of recovery.  We squirm at accusations of bigotry while refusing to identify our accusers as the authentic bigots. We retreat before allegations of racism by opponents who are the real racists.  We are deathly afraid to talk about racial solidarity, although it is the racial solidarity of others that has performed the miracle of our dispossession.

Robertson understood that the solution to our demise requires a revolutionary behavioral change towards unabashed courage. “If we are to win this war [against Western Civilization], we must conquer not only our enemies, but ourselves.”  And maybe that change demands a re-thinking of our past ideals:

We were once idealistic enough to believe that, at least on paper, all men were equal. Now we know better. Now we know that those who honestly believe in equality are likely to become the servants of those who pretend to believe in it.

That certainly sounds like the summary of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, doesn’t it? If only more of our people would read and draw lessons from masterful writings like that! Instead, we know that since the dawn of the movies, advancing to TV, then personal computer bringing us Facebook, Twitter/X, and TikTok, our people have demanded more from less of our time-space, and on smaller screens. While the internet and PCs were not even available to the public when Ventilations was published, Wilmot Robertson delivered a profound message that makes even writing this simple book review seem so very worthwhile. It’s the spirit at the heart of  this article, the patience that precedes glory:

The written word does not bring with it the immediate satisfaction of the spoken word. Nevertheless, it is the authentic seed of action. Your successors, the second — and third-echelon movers and shakers of future generations, will harvest the crop you have sown in your loneliness and tragic isolation. But instead of being depressed by such a thought, you should be aware that very few humans have ever had the priceless opportunity to be in at the start of a fateful attempt to save a great people from suicide. Your reward, although delayed, will be the greatest of all rewards, a niche in history. (emphasis in original)

I believe Francis Parker Yockey would have approved those words! And an inspiration like that could help multiple generations of our still-current Majority start playing the long game, just as our adversaries have, if Robertson’s wisdom and message spread.

Indeed, the dispossession of the European White race from America, its European Homeland and Western colonies — The Great Replacement — has been played out for many generations, and well over a century. Robertson ends his book urging us to use “morality as a weapon,” much like Dr. Kevin MacDonald always stresses how our opposition routinely conquers us by claiming the “moral high ground.”

What Would Wilmot Do Today?

While I write this book review, two of the most striking examples challenging our European-derived principles today are right before our very eyes, and Robertson’s spirit is surely wondering what’s taking the Majority so long to stake out the moral high ground. Most of the general American public that watches network news, CNN or Fox News, is inundated with one particular commercial so much that they probably could sing the accompanying jingle without a hitch. I’m talking about “1-877- Kars-4-Kids, donate your car today!” This charity is so successful that it’s likely that very few have not heard of it — but how many know whose kids receive the donations?  It’s not surprising that this non-profit spells “cars” with the letter “K,” since the organization is through and through Kosher in its focus, with donations funding (exclusively?) Jewish children’s organizations. And it’s no longer just cars that the charity takes on, but also boats, airplanes and real estate!

Along with that jingle, the American public has their heartstrings pulled multiple times per day to help these poor young innocent souls. The amount of advertising from this organization alone hints that they are a successful money-maker, and it would be no surprise to find that the ever-altruistic European-Americans are the predominant group rushing to open their wallets to help the “kids.”[3] Actually, it might move them more if they knew it was strictly Jewish children the charity was helping since Jewish victimhood has been drilled so well into the minds of Americans. One can only behold how well the drumbeating jingle works, and “pathological altruism” kicks in (as Dr. MacDonald might claim).[4]

But at the same time, 2024 and beyond saw the Jewish community’s majority both tacitly and overtly sanctioning the Israeli slaughter of innocent non-combatant Palestinian kids (because they’ll grow up to be Hamas combatants?), and any American protesting these disgusting war crimes is singled out as an “anti-Semite” and has their career or livelihood destroyed one way or the other by Jewish elites and their supporting organizations. Then, the same Jewish community sneakily takes your money to support their children from a charity goliath that uses kids to draw your sympathy. The cognitive dissonance could rattle the heads of anyone clued in to today’s real world, and it’s time somebody call them out on it. A reading of Ventilations might inspire the strong, intelligent and courageous of the Majority today to meme this hypocrisy into a truth movement supporting our children’s future. For some day, Majority children may be a despised minority just as Palestinian children today are being found under concrete rubble by the thousands.

Here’s another folly of “justice” foisted upon our minds that wasn’t quite at a mature state when Ventilations was published: The Israeli lobby approves the ongoing Palestinian genocide based on the October 7th Israeli hostage crisis and the 1200 allegedly killed in action. But for decades now the American people have been forced to accept hundreds of thousands, if not millions over time, of murdered citizens caused by the illegal drug trade brought in across our southern border as well as violent illegal immigrants and cartel networks growing in our Homeland.[5] Based on today’s Jewish logic we are forced to hear every day from the mainstream media (“all Palestinians are Amalek,” “destroy all of Gaza including non-combatant citizens”), Robertson might assert that Americans should have annexed Mexico or Central America over a decade ago when fentanyl deaths began to creep up. American government support for Israeli military actions certainly places our people’s lives and security into second place compared to foreign interests, and it’s now up to our people to speak intelligently on this delusional madness — wherever their voice can be heard.

Speaking up with what we have remaining in our First Amendment is one of our greatest challenges facing us when billionaire Elon Musk’s “X” social media platform obeys the wishes of a non-profit, the ADL. And that’s why if Elon wants to make a difference for the world, he too should invest a few hours in Ventilations and heed the important lessons taught in this collection of essays.

This direct mail fundraising letter received by the author at time of writing; Same organization inundates TV with lengthy infomercials targeting Christians; Is there any equivalent showing poor Christian widows or starving Palestinian children seeking money from the wealthiest ethnicity in the world?

 

Inside Ventilations the reader will find “An important message for Christians,” non-Christians, and in fact all Gentile Americans wishing to reverse the accelerating dispossession of White European-Americans from their Homeland.  Until we find the boldness to aggressively raise funds and build an organized-Majority explicitly for their interests, or until money and finances no longer are a factor in the big picture, Ventilations and TDM should be required reading for understanding the grave dilemma we face and brainstorming multiple paths towards our sanctuary. For the Millennials and Gen Z, just call it Diversity Training!

Final Thoughts Inspired by Wilmot

I’ll conclude my review of Ventilations by returning to the start of this article where I was surprised at the opening words of an older Jewish woman asking me straight off about holocaust movies: There hasn’t been a day since October 7, 2023, where “the [Israeli] hostages” haven’t been mentioned in the news. But in the paradigm I would like to see more widely known, I see the sailors and marines who survived the 1967 attack on the USS Liberty as the greatest hostages in our recent American history — hostages to our government’s lies and betrayals for 58 years now, whose PTSD must be unthinkable. Those military men were likely not all Majority members, but the suppression of their story by The System we live under today clearly shows that American civic nationalism is dead — a foreign nation matters more than American patriots serving our own country. We constantly admonished to “never forget” the Israeli hostages, but we are forced to forget the dead sailors who were left in a flooded gaping hole of a Navy ship attacked by Israeli military, or the dead servicemen shot up on the deck or murdered with napalm. So the next time I meet someone worth influencing at first greeting, I will follow the strong collective advocacy approach and say, “Have you visited USSLiberty.org?” instead of “Hi, my name is Sigurd!”

Until the USS Liberty survivors, such as author Phil Tourney, are given a standing ovation in congress greater than Netanyahu received, I encourage our readers to blindside others with a retort on “hostages” such as “Which hostages?” to grow a back bone for even stronger challenges against our demise — challenges that could help create a new word for Chutzpah, but exclusively reserved for European-Americans. Make USSLiberty.org a household name and charity that will bring reflection and perspective on what kind of collective will best suit our Majority interests now that sacrificed military men have been disgraced in favor of a hostile nation advertised as “our greatest ally.” With that moral compass redefined and polished, we can begin our own ventilations to guide us in our struggle.[6] Perhaps then “Hostages” will always be published with a capital “H” like the “Holocaust” is today in journalism, but it will signify even greater meaning for the European Man. It will serve as a memory that Westernkind was held Hostage in their own nation-states for well over a century while it fought massively destructive and fratricidal wars — later termed the Zionist Wars by our newly awakened people — until European humanity at last spoke.

Wilmot Robertson put it this way in Ventilations:

But one day, perhaps in five years, perhaps in fifty, the Majority’s decline will be pushed a little too far and a little too fast. Something will finally snap in the neuron network of some talented Majority politician. For the first time a Majority member with brains, character and ambition will divert his life-supporting drives to his race rather than to his career. From then on, the Majority curve will point up. The termite will then have to think seriously about moving to another mound and the fungus to another tree.

Clearly, that “Majority politician” will have to have protection from blackmail or assassination, the enemy’s favorite tactics when bribery via campaign contributions or ostracizing fails.

January 21, 2025 post script: President Donald Trump, who took office yesterday, probably is not that man. But maybe he will fertilize the soil that will create him!


[1] https://x.com/JGreenblattADL/status/1511331730594095107

[2] See An Empire of their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, Neal Gabler, (1988) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/118657.An_Empire_of_Their_Own

[3] Their mission statement as filed on their 2021 IRS form 990 stated:
“KARS 4 KIDS FUNDS EDUCATIONAL, DEVELOPMENTAL, AND RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR JEWISH YOUTH AND THEIR FAMILIES. OUR GOAL IS TO FOSTER A GENERATION OF WELL-BALANCED, PRODUCTIVE ADULTS. OUR MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH THIS GOAL IS TO PROVIDE CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES WITH A STRONG NETWORK OF PERSONAL GUIDANCE AND EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES, INDIVIDUALIZED TO THEIR NEEDS. OUR WIDE ARRAY OF SERVICES IS DESIGNED TO MAXIMIZE EACH FACET OF A CHILD’S DEVELOPMENT — ACADEMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL.KARS 4 KIDS’S OVERALL AREAS OF ACTIVITY CONSIST OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING, SCHOOL PLACEMENT, TUITION ASSISTANCE, MENTORSHIP PROGRAMS, CULTURAL ACTIVITIES, WEEKEND RETREATS, RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION, SUMMER CAMPS, RECREATION AND GUIDANCE COUNSELING.”

The “Gross Receipts” on this form indicate $234,009,826.

[4] See “The Personality System of Empathy,” Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition. Dr. Kevin MacDonald, p. 318, and “The Role of Empathy in Moral Communities: Altruism — And Pathological Altruism,” p. 381–391

[5] Please see and consider supporting the 501(c)3 non-profit “The Homeland Institute” for polling and surveys that better serve the Majority’s opinions and interests. It’s one of only a handful of such IRS-sanctioned organizations. See https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates#Fig3 for government stats on overdose deaths in America.

[6] Ventilate: to examine, discuss, or investigate freely and openly: expose (definition 2.a. Merriam-Webster dictionary)

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Sigurd Kristensen https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Sigurd Kristensen2025-01-28 07:11:572025-01-28 16:41:09Destination 1982: Wilmot Robertson’s “Ventilations” Then and Now — Part 2 of 2

Destination 1982: Wilmot Robertson’s “Ventilations” Then and Now — Part 1 of 2

January 27, 2025/2 Comments/in Featured Articles, White Pathology/Guilt, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy/by Sigurd Kristensen

3152 words

The Context

Absolutely true event — not a joke: My former neighbor, whose parents emigrated from the nation of Georgia to Israel to the United States, introduced me for the first time to his parents on a family visit. I cordially spoke, “Hello, my name is Sigurd, and I live next door.”  The mother immediately fired back with the strangest reply in her strong foreign accent, “Have you heard about the new holocaust movie?” “Why no, I haven’t. And what was your name again?” I answered. While geography and family economic status had me surrounded by Jews since early childhood onward, and having developed an understanding of what I might expect in their social behavioral traits, this mother’s opening line finally confirmed my midlife curiosities that these people were wired differently, despite the often-similar skin color. This was my turning point where I scrutinized our social, cultural and political situation with a much keener eye. Human diversity was a fact, and as my worldview evolved along with the internet, I came across a book — a quasi-underground classic — that attempted to spell it all out on behalf of the European-American’s perspective: The Dispossessed Majority, by Wilmot Robertson, published in 1972[1] (henceforth TDM).

President Trump is found on cover of the latest paperback edition of The Dispossessed Majority

Robertson’s magnum opus is an eloquent attempt to bring racial consciousness to the American Majority before it’s too late! As its dust jacket introduction states, “this mind-rousing book hammers home the theme that America has changed, and changed for the worse…the Americans of Northern European descent — the American Majority — have been reduced to second-class status.” It continues, “the sickness of America…is presently racked by a double infection: (1) the moral debility of liberalism [and] (2) the rampant virus of minority racism.” The concluding paragraph here finally describes the American Majority as “the loser in a racial war.”

Wilmot Robertson’s life experiences and extensive education brought him the great clarity to coin the term “The Dispossessed Majority.” But while even the mainstream Fox News channel will carry today’s similar term “The Great Displacement,” they dare not credit the author whose book forewarned Americans and is still available on Amazon (hardcover, $224 and paperback for $35). For Fox News, delving into what they’d consider extreme right-wing literature is far more violent and hateful than tacitly approving the America-funded-and-condoned bombing of defenseless women, children, and non-combatant male civilians in the Middle East (continued by Trump).

As abhorrent and devastating as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict had already been by the writing of TDM, this subject comprises but a small chapter within a larger section on “The Foreign Policy Clash.” In fact, after addressing racial dynamics, racial composition, and the predicaments of the Majority, the core substance of its original 538 pages carefully describes the Minority groups within our nation that have interests that conflict with those of the Majority. The factor of assimilability is stressed in Robertson’s writing long before the Diversity-Equity-Inclusion movement celebrated the differences of all groups and sub-groups of peoples apart from the nuclear family which is indigenous to Whites and rare in the rest of the world; nor was the heterogeneity of Whites acknowledge in an effort to paint all Whites as cut from the same (evil) cloth. Chapters V–VIII emphasize Majority-Minority “Clashes” — culturally, politically, economically, and legally, and the book concludes with Prospects and Perspectives. It is here where Robertson’s nine pages titled “Toward a Pax Americana” foreshadows concepts for his final book, “The Ethnostate,” a 1993 utopian journey that he professed would be most beneficial for the civilizations of all races — not just those of European descent — since multi-cultural societies always degenerate into discord.

Social Science Bookshelves Today

TDM has sold hundreds of thousands of copies in over fifty years despite the challenges promoting a book that defends and advances the uniqueness of Northern Europeans and their American descendents. Indeed, the quality of Robertson’s writing and the rationality of his intellect present (in this author’s opinion) the most profound and sagacious appeal ever accomplished on behalf of the White race. TDM would easily have sold millions if abundantly stocked on the Social Science shelves of a Barnes & Noble book store today. This is where you should find this well-thought-out discourse in defense of Western peoples and culture. Robertson’s the book is both exemplary and thorough, but instead of carrying TDM or other like-minded books, instead, this last bastion for brick-and-mortar book sales carries titles like: Rich White Men, by Garrett Neiman, White Fear, by Roland S. Martin, White Fragility, by Robin Diangelo, Nice Racism (How Progressive White People Perpetuate Racial Harm), also by Robin Diangelo, Nice White Ladies (The Truth about White Supremacy, Our Role in it, and How We Can Help Dismantle It) by Jessie Daniels, and of course Critical Race Theory, Fourth Edition, by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. Today’s mainstream social science topics certainly do not shy away from the topic of “race.” It’s just that “racial justice” today means tipping the shelves over with multi-pronged anti-White attacks from every direction![2]

Typical books found in the “Social Science” section at popular book stores

One book that was also displayed prominently in the Barnes & Noble social science section was Uncomfortable Conversations With A Jew, by Emmanuel Acho and Noa Tishby, both “New York Times Bestselling Authors.” The back cover of Uncomfortable Conversations brings up a multitude of topics on Jews that I’m confident Wilmot Robertson would loved to have opined on — topics which today’s critical-thinking youth of all races are probably questioning amidst the escalations of Israeli (read: Jewish) deadly aggression (read: war crimes) and student protests against it (read: last vestige of American freedom of speech). We find:

  • Is a “Jewish race” a thing?
  • Is it true that people don’t believe the Holocaust really happened?
  • Are Jewish people white? Do they have access to the privilege that comes with that?
  • If Zionism is Jewish people’s right to have a country, what’s the counter?
  • Is it possible to be an anti-Zionist and not be antisemitic?[3]
  • In whose life am I the oppressor?
  • Why are there so many Jewish people in Hollywood?
  • Could the Holocaust happen again?
  • Is ending antisemitism even possible?

And most relevant to what we see and hear today in everyday news and media:

  •  Calling things antisemitic is the quickest way to shut down a discussion. But if there are no discussions, how can we ever reach a place of understanding?

Everybody on the book shelves is a “New York Times Bestselling Author.” Wilmot Robertson devoted a chapter in Ventilations to why he didn’t garner this accolade.

If equity or egalitarianism[4] referred to any notion of fairness for all races, this book and the previous social science bestsellers already mentioned would alone justify mainstreaming of TDM. It should sit side by side on the shelf next to Uncomfortable Conversations at Barnes & Noble, since Robertson’s book represents the uncomfortable racial realism issues confronting Majority Americans — whether they know it or not. Instead, TDM receives “The Censorship of Silence.” And a decade after its first edition print, this would become the title of the third chapter in a new Wilmot Robertson book that provided his essays and commentary on TDM:  Ventilations.

Anti-White books dominate brick & mortar book store shelves for “Social Science.”

Wilmot’s Observation: More Pronounced Domination = More Separateness

Robertson wrote 45 pages on “The Jews” as a separate chapter within “The Minority Challenge” section of TDM, and it was the longest chapter regarding minorities while representing less than ten percent of the book.[5] After reading the book twice, I found his treatment of Jews and their history to be just a small side story in the overall message and lessons he was trying to convey, and I wondered if the Uncomfortable Conversations authors would even approve TDM on the same shelf as theirs? But for today’s young adults with curiosity on how our government and nation ticks, having no clue as to how a William Ackman[6] can summon up a congressional hearing to confront campus free speech, or how people like him, such as Idan Ofer, Len Blavatnik, or Leslie Wexner, can earn or accumulate vast sums of money and a great deal of power, this TDM chapter instructs us:

To sum up the phenomenon of Jewish affluence, what is happening in the United States today is what has been happening throughout much of Western history. The Jews, finding themselves unrestricted and uncurbed in a land rich in resources and labor, are rapidly monopolizing its wealth. It is almost certainly the same historic process that took place in Visigothic, Arabic and Catholic Spain, in medieval England, France and Germany — and most recently in twentieth-century Germany. Yet no one cares — or dares — to notice it.

He emphasizes that so many people seem to be

concerned about labor monopolies or business cartels, about the influence of the Roman Catholic Church or the military-industrial complex, about the WASP domination of the big corporations or the international Communist conspiracy,

but these same critics are

strangely silent and utterly unconcerned about the activities of an ever more powerful, ever more dominant, supranational ethnocentrism with almost unlimited  financial resources at its command.

Here are Robertson’s comments on anti-Semitism — comments that prefigured Uncomfortable Conversations and provide a quite different perspective:

Instead of submitting anti-Semitism to the free play of ideas, instead of making it a topic for debate in which all can join, Jews and their liberal supporters have managed to organize an inquisition in which all acts, writings and even thoughts critical of Jewry are treated as a threat to the moral order of mankind. The Tartuffe[7] of the contemporary era turns out to be the Jewish intellectual who believes passionately in the rights of free speech and peaceful assembly for all, but rejoices when permits are refused for anti-Semitic meetings and rocks crack against the skulls of anti-Semitic speakers.

More than fifty years later we find our U.S. House of Representatives passing an outrageous anti-Semitism bill aimed at preventing criticism of Jews and Israel;[8] and we find that “punching Nazis” has become normalized and society-approved form of violence. Robertson saw it all coming, but then he also understood history. He emphasizes that “Jews seem bent on destroying the very political, economic and social climate that has made their success possible.”

But how does Robertson really feel about Jewish history?

As if in the grip of a lemming-like frenzy, they have been in the forefront of every divisive force of the modern era, from class agitation to minority racism, from the worst capitalistic exploitation to the most brutal collectivism, from blind religious orthodoxy to atheism and psychoanalysis, from total dogmatism to total permissiveness.

The TDM chapter on “The Jews” ends with Robertson admonishing the reader “to transcend, for the first time, the ancient racial infighting by submitting the Jewish problem to reason and full disclosure, not to the harsh and inconclusive solutions of the past.” His appeal is fundamentally moral. But this last paragraph incorporated a pre-condition for this to occur: “When and if a resuscitated American Majority has the strength and the will to put a stop to the Jewish envelopment of America,” he wishes that we learn from, and not repeat history. And with (1) new laws on the near horizon combating anti-Semitism and possibly even “hate speech,” with (2) a newly elected President Donald Trump ostensibly supporting such crackdowns,[9] and with (3) politically-right-leaning citizens resting (all too) comfortably within the Republican Party that now has four more years in control, it remains doubtful that Wilmot Robertson’s reasoning and “full disclosures” will see daylight any time soon.

Most Americans read very little, and very few have heard the term “The Jewish Question” or “The JQ,” and even fewer “The Jewish Problem” despite these societal conflicts having existed for millennia.[10] Mainstream media and academia create the historical, political and cultural narrative that we consume. Most of the Majority haven’t a clue as to how many influential people in America identify as Jews, and so a book like TDM might open the eyes of a typical under-informed American and change his or her worldview, adding both wider and sharper focused lenses. 

A Decade after TDM: An Open Discussion on Race and Politics

In 1982 Wilmot Robertson published Ventilations, a short 113-page gem that is no longer available in print. It can, however, be downloaded from colchestercollection.com, the archival work created by a former writer/White advocate from The Occidental Observer, Russell James. I call it a gem because Robertson elucidates so many topics that occupied “the current events” of my teens and early adulthood, giving them a fresh perspective that complements and affirms the significance of TDM as we fall ever more downward in The Decline of the West.[11]

Wilmot Robertson was also the founder and publisher of the magazine Instauration, which presented articles that TDM readers likely found important and insightful. For instance, one issue featured the sensational 1913 Georgia trial of Leo Frank and the murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan, “Pardoning the Unpardonable.” But it was in a 1982 issue where he finally commented on pro-Spenglerian metaphysical white knight “Francis Parker Yockey and the Politics of Destiny,” and especially regarding his book, Imperium, for it was the definitions of “race” that caused splits between the two camps of right-wing movements supporting America and Western Civilization. Per author Kerry Bolton’s biography on Yockey,[12]

The two types of race theory according to Yockey are ‘horizontal race’ and ‘vertical race’. The first is the race of the ‘spirit’, culture and soul, expounded by the German Idealists, Herder, Goethe, Fichte, et. al. The second is biological and materialistic, measured and tabulated, influenced by Darwin, and introduced to Germany by Haeckel.

Wilmot Robertson’s TDM definitely embraced the vertical race concept, as Bolton also describes as ‘zoological’ race theory. The quotes of the Instauration article provided in Bolton’s book are important if an advocate for “Westernkind and White Wellbeing”[13] wished to learn the history and inner conflicts of the movement resisting Majority dispossession:

In the six years since its existence, Instauration has not once touched upon the problem of Francis Parker Yockey. We say problem because it’s hard to know exactly what to make of this mysterious character, who has become a cult figure of certain hermetic elements of the American right. His much touted and much thumbed through Imperium (Noontide Press) is part twentieth-century Book of Revelations, part post-script to Oswald Spengler, part revised and updated edition of Mein Kampf. His suicide or murder in a San Francisco jail makes him a candidate for martyrdom in some future century, provided that in the meantime his writings and his tragic life story have not been scourged out of the West’s consciousness.

Towards the end of the article, Robertson sheds his positive viewpoint on Yockey:

[Yockey’s] great selling point is that amid all the despondency of the present age, he is one of the very few thinkers who offers us Balm in Gilead, some shreds of hope, some possibility of white resurgence. Expectedly, it is not the deep space of the cosmos that Yockey is interested in, but the equally deep and equally mysterious space of the inner man. This is all to the good because in these days anyone who writes seriously and earnestly about the soul, about the Western soul, strikes a bell that reverberates most pleasantly up and down our increasingly spineless spines.

So more power to Yockey. He is still alive and kicking in the hearts of a sizeable number of true believers. Despite his shortcomings, his life and his works are proof that no matter how far they get us down, we will never be out.[14]

Yockey was profoundly spiritual, Robertson was rational and more pragmatic. They also viewed Europeans differently, Yockey being the ultimate ‘inclusive’ proponent of all Europeans — including Western Russians — while Robertson favoring Nordics. And while they may have viewed race differently, they did share an updated view on the Soviet Union, particularly regarding the decline of Jewish power and influence in that communist state. Apparently, this topic tended to divide the right-wing movement from the 1940s onward, and Ventilations presents this topic as its first chapter, “The Kremlin and the Jews.” Given a similar divide in Majority opinions today on Russia and Putin, good or evil, Robertson’s 1982 commentary (contesting that the U.S.S.R. was under Jewish control by that time) provides amusing quips and forgotten events:

Jews themselves have reason to be suspicious about Russian racial policies when the foremost Jewish world organizations, which used to sing the praises of Russia openly or in secret, now issue frequent press releases accusing the Soviet government of anti-Semitism. When the United States Senate rejects most-favorite nation treatment for Russian trade, when Jewish publishers and reviewers in America heavily promote books by Khrushchev, Stalin’s daughter, Svetlana Alliluyeva, and the dissident Yugoslav Communist, Djilas, pointing out instance after instance of Stalin’s anti-Semitic speeches and cheer Yasser Arafat, when Russia gives or sells huge amounts of arms to Syria, Iraq, and Libya, Israel’s bitterest enemies, when Jews flee the Soviet Union by hundreds of thousands, it is difficult for anyone to say that Russia is a pro-Jewish country.

With all of the recent American uproar against Russia and our arming of Ukraine, Robertson’s view predicts the 2024 victory for Donald Trump and his campaign promises:

If we want to protect ourselves from the Russians — and we should never close our eyes to the possibility of a sudden Russian assault on Western Europe or on the oil fields of the Middle East — we should clean up our domestic chaos, which is an open invitation to Soviet aggression everywhere.” (my emphasis)

When millions of Americans go out after dark without running the risk of being mugged, raped or murdered by bands of roving young blacks who haven’t the faintest notion of what a Communist is or what communism stands for, it hardly seems logical for the Birch Society, William F. Buckley, Jr. and other assorted ‘patriots’ to harp on the Red Menace while carefully avoiding the far greater domestic menace.

Fast forward to today and we hear Republican pundits constantly harping on “Chinese Communists” while BLM/AntiFa rioters have recently burned our cities down ostensibly with federal agency immunity. Russia recently failed to support the Syrian government against Israeli and U.S. intervention, but in 1982, Robertson wished to straighten out the geo-political beliefs of right wingers:

When Jewish propaganda mills are cranking out anti-Russian articles day and night, it is some-what mind-boggling for our rock-ribbed anti-Semites to inform us that Jews and Russians are joining in a secret alliance. These fossilized patriots cannot seem to get it out of their heads that Jewish support for world revolution has now been withdrawn from the Russians and funneled into the New Left, the Maoists, the Zionists, militant liberalism and noisy Kosher conservatism.

Go to Part 2.


[1] The Dispossessed Majority, Howard Allen Enterprises, Cape Canaveral, FL, 1972. Wilmot Robertson was the pen name of John Humphrey Ireland (1915–2005), who studied at Yale, served in the Army during WWII, studied Physics at U.C. Berkeley, started a small scientific company, and had a successful career in journalism and advertising. Obviously, he was an intelligent man whose written words on racial matters could not be easily dismissed as simply “bigoted racism” (as leftists and mainstream conformists would describe), but rather an intellectual counter-argument that had to be censored by The System.

[2] It does appear, though, that Wilmot Robertson’s TDM might be purchased online in the new edition paperback from the https://www.barnesandnoble.com/.  On searching availability of this paperback, however, this author’s effort yielded nothing. It certainly wasn’t available on store shelves.

[3] Uncomfortable Conversations With A Jew uses the spelling “antisemitism” instead of the more commonly presented “anti-Semitism” on the book’s back cover.

[4] Robertson’s TDM frequently refers, instead, to ‘equalitarianism’.

[5] For comparison, Robertson wrote 25 pages on “The Negroes” in “The Minority Challenge” section.

[6] https://www.thenation.com/article/society/william-ackman-harvard-donor/

[7] Tartuffe, or The Impostor, or The Hypocrite, was a French theatrical play (by Molière) first performed in 1664 that included a character with the same name. The word Tartuffe now is used to mean a hypocrite who gives a false impression of caring for what is virtuous.

[8] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090

[9] See CNN’s story: “Trump Vows to ‘Remove the Jew Haters’…”, https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/08/politics/trump-remove-jew-haters-october-7-event/index.html

[10] But when Americans do read non-fiction, they do flock to the social science section of the book store in search for answers to the crazy world we are living in.

[11] The Decline of the West, Oswald Spengler, original publications: Volume 1 (1918), Volume 2 (1922), available by Arktos Media Ltd (2021)

[12] Yockey: A Fascist Odyssey, Kerry Bolton  (Arktos Media Ltd., 2018), https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38741770-yockey

[13] Jason Kohne, Go Free: A Guide To Aligning With The Archetype of Westernkind, (2017)

[14] Yockey, A Fascist Odyssey, Kerry Bolton, p. 502 (Resurrection)

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Sigurd Kristensen https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Sigurd Kristensen2025-01-27 07:54:342025-01-28 07:13:04Destination 1982: Wilmot Robertson’s “Ventilations” Then and Now — Part 1 of 2

Preserving the White Majority in the United States: My 10-Point Plan

January 14, 2025/14 Comments/in Featured Articles, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy/by Spencer J. Quinn
From Counter-Currents, with permission.

Preserving the White Majority in the United States: My 10-Point Plan

Since Donald Trump was re-elected in November, many things that were rarely said in the mainstream are now being floated in public and taken seriously. Great examples include mass deportations, the US buying Greenland, Facebook ending its fact-checking algorithms, the phasing out of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, flipping New Jersey red, and restricting immigration from India. Three months ago, who in the mainstream was discussing, let along debating, such topics? Whatever faults Trump has—and he has many—being wholly part of the Washington uniparty elite is not one of them. And that is a good thing. This reminds me of the Khrushchev Thaw period following the death of Josef Stalin in 1953. For a time, ordinary people and Soviet elite alike were let out on a longer leash, and could engage in discourse that had previously been frowned upon or forbidden. Yes, it was more of a Thermidorian reaction than anything real, but it still opened the door for at least some changes and improvements to the Soviet Union.

Of course, it didn’t last. Mostly likely Trump’s thaw won’t either (they never do, do they?). This is why white advocates should take advantage of this period of greater openness while we can. In other words, it’s time to push the envelope, even if that means getting the enveloped shoved back into our faces by a president who might identify more as orange than white.

My suggestion, beyond what David Zsutty has given us in his excellent three-part series “What White Nationalists Want From the Trump Administration,” is to propose a bill in Congress which would, on paper at least, protect the US white majority in perpetuity through selective immigration bans, mass deportations, and pro-natalist policies. Outlandish, I know. A white US minority is the very thing the Left craves and the mainstream Right is too afraid to talk about—a political third rail indeed. However, there are upsides to attempting to sell such legislation to US congressmen during the second Trump term—aside from it actually succeeding, of course.

For one, whites these days are waking up to anti-whiteism, and so a proposed bill to protect the dwindling white majority at least won’t be unpopular among whites in red areas of the country. Such a proposition in 2025 would certainly not come out of left field, and would make sense to many. Trump has recently spoken against anti-white racism, and so have conservative mainstream pundits such as Charlie Kirk, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Laura Loomer, Michelle Malkin, Matt Walsh, and Mark Dice. The Hodge Twins as well as former MMA world champion Jake Shields recently featured longtime white advocate David Duke on their podcasts. Jared Taylor had his Twitter/X account restored and has garnered tens of thousands of followers. Patrick Bet David recently hosted Patriot Front leader Thomas Rousseau. And here’s a report from February 2024 about a Michigan lawmaker Steve Carra who led a sit in outside the Michigan House Speaker’s office to protest his state’s anti-white spending policies.

So if there ever was a good time to go public with a pro-white initiative like this one, it’s now.

Secondly, even in defeat, such a proposal will provide a surfeit of rhetorical victories for the Dissident Right and pro-white camps. Any congressman who ignores or opposes such a bill can be fairly branded as anti-white. Not only this, they can be accused of not just wanting a white minority, but actually contriving to attain one. If you are not in favor of a white majority then you are in favor of a white minority. There is no middle ground. Yes, most Democrats would reject such a bill out of hand, gladly admitting that they look forward to the day that whites dip below 50 percent in America. Joe Biden did just that back in February 2015. With today’s whites being less likely to tolerate anti-whiteism than ever before, record of such a refusal would certainly help damage a Democrat ticket during a general election.

But the main use of such a bill would be to hector, bog down, or at best replace weak-minded Republican lawmakers who would also reject the bill. How much would it cost, really, to primary a Republican congressman who refuses to consider a pro-white bill because the mainstream narrative tells him it’s racist? How hard would it be for even mainstream Republicans with a little pluck to ding an incumbent over his purported hostility towards whites? Remember, we are in the Trump Thaw at the moment. So what seemed beyond the pale of public discourse three months ago, may no longer be. With enough energetic, well-funded, aspiring politicians beating the white majority drum, establishment Republicans would have to at least give lip service before rejecting the bill. And the more people talking about it, the better—even if much of that talk is negative. And for all we know it could even work well enough to reach a vote on the House floor.

You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.

Finally, there is the metapolitical change that such a bill promises to make. They say the process is the punishment, but in this case the process would also the reward. The goal here should not necessarily be to get the bill passed (although that would be great). The goal should be to introduce the bill into the long and arduous lawmaking process in order to make it its own news item. The goal should be to get people talking about it in the way the Soviet public began discussing the gulags after the publication of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich during the Khrushchev Thaw. The goal should be to get ordinary, everyday whites to begin to want or even expect a white majority in this country. They should consider it their birthright, given how the Founding Fathers were all white and the vast majority of people who have fought and died in America’s wars have also been white. And why not? Is there anything in the US Constitution preventing this country’s founding race from legislating its perpetual majority? Can that even be called racist? In the Trump 2.0 era, what really is preventing a critical mass of whites from adopting such a perspective? Nothing, I’d say. As I’ve pointed out above, all the signs are actually quite encouraging.

If you are reading this because you have white identity—even a secret one—and you’re not a researcher from the Anti-Defamation League or Southern Poverty Law Center looking to squeeze the vitality out of the entire white race, then ask yourself, why not? Why can’t whites discuss these things? Why can’t we expect such things? Are our jobs and incomes and social standings worth so much to us that we cannot at least throw a few shekels at politicians and pundits willing to buck the anti-white system and stand up for ourselves? Do we really want to live in a world in which we are outnumbered by hostile non-whites in our own hometowns? Is this the kind of world we’d wish upon our children and grandchildren?

If not, then . . . what are we doing?

Assuming that we all understand that we need to do something, is there a better idea than crafting some sort of incipient law and presenting it to prospective lawmakers who are willing to promote it while running for office? Now, I am not an attorney, and have little influence irrespective of that. But maybe somebody reading this does have influence and can make a difference? If so, then I offer a rough 10-point plan as a starting point. And before I get outraged comments about how my plan is some cucked Magna Carta, please remember that this is not a White Nationalist wish list, but a proposal for a real-world document to effect real-world changes in the here and now that even non-whites in America today could abide. It will basically be a promise from whites to non-whites to share the United States with them in good faith as long as the current racial proportions remain the same. It will be an effort to halt the white demographic decline, not to turn back the clock or start a race war. Thus, there will be compromises in it which many white advocates (myself included) will find odious. Please don’t let these get in the way of seeing the overall value of the plan.

Such a plan can go two ways: it can work or it can fail. In the former case, great. We won’t be back to 1960, but it won’t be 2020 either. Let’s split the difference and call it 1990, not exactly a terrible year in the life of white people. In the latter case however—which is much more likely—the heightened racial awareness of whites will necessarily increase friction with American non-whites, and will lead to one of two things: red state secession, which is the first step towards a white ethnostate, or (God help us) Civil War 2.0. Again, in the former case, great. And in the latter, we would at least have a fighting chance. This means that of the three possible outcomes of a bill like this, two and a half are positive. Not bad, right?

Anyway, here are my 10 points, and if someone thinks they can do better and still be realistic, I’m all ears:

BILL TO ENSURE THE PERPETUAL WHITE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES

  1. Require bi-yearly censuses.
  2. Define white by “one-half not black” rule (at least one white parent, and no fully-black parent). For the sake of this bill, “whites” would include people of white European descent, Jews originating in Europe, and Caucasians from Central Asia.
  3. Employ self-identification to determine race, and agreed-upon genetic markers to determine race in case of appeals.
  4. Establish African Americans and Indigenous Americans as “demographically exempt” populations. (This means that their populations can fluctuate naturally and are not counted when calculating the proportion of whites to the general population. This would be a good thing for both populations and should be promoted as such.)
  5. Require that the white majority remain no lower than 80% of the US population minus the exempt populations. (Using rough estimates taken from Wikipedia, the United States currently has 48 million blacks and 7 million Indigenous Americans, making 55 million demographically exempt citizens. Subtract this from the 340 million total population to get a denominator of 285 million. Divide the 205 million whites in America by that to get around 72 percent. If such a bill were to be signed into law, the main focus of government would be to push that number up to 80 percent as soon as possible.)
  6. Require that, among non-exempt non-whites, no more than 10 percent of the US population be of Mexican, Central American, or South American descent. All immigration from these places will stop if this proportion grows above this percentage.
  7. Require that, among non-exempt non-whites, no more than 10 percent of the US population be of Asian or Middle Eastern descent. All immigration from these places will stop if this proportion grows above this percentage.
  8. Require that pro-white immigration and pro-white natalist policies be put in place until whites reach 80 percent of the total non-exempt US population.
  9. Require that all illegal immigrants as well as legal immigrants with a history of violent or serious crimes be deported.
  10. Ban all immigration from places of origin of racially exempt populations (i.e., Indigenous peoples from the Americas or blacks from Sub-Saharan Africa).

Given how the Trump Thaw has already allowed whites more leeway to discuss their own racial interests (and Trump hasn’t even taken office yet), I think my 10-point plan might push the envelope far enough but too far in order to get white people to act their own racial interests as well.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Spencer J. Quinn https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Spencer J. Quinn2025-01-14 00:01:592025-01-13 12:54:29Preserving the White Majority in the United States: My 10-Point Plan

Some basic principles for the national struggle

May 4, 2024/13 Comments/in Featured Articles, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy/by Povl H. Riis-Knudsen

With permission from: Danmarks Frihedsraad, a Danish Nationalist site.

Looking across the political landscape today, there is little reason not to be dismayed. Quite simply, Denmark has no national opposition to the prevailing political system. And by opposition, we don’t just mean a political opposition, but also a cultural and ideological opposition.

Many will now mention the Danish People’s Party as well as the Danish Association, the Danish Culture Association and possibly other small groups that may have some good will, but are all very far from meeting the criteria for being a national opposition.

In order to deal with any political or cultural issues that go beyond today’s arguments about tax rates, it is necessary to be clear about the nature of the task facing such an opposition. Every political leader must be able to expect absolute clarity on the following points. If they lack this clarity, they indulge in illusions, wishful thinking and easy shortcuts that only lead to nothingness. If he has clarity but still indulges in illusions that there is an easier way, he is dishonest and will achieve nothing. Only those who let every action be guided by these principles can accomplish anything positive – no matter in what way they choose to advance the Danish cause.

The following points are not a political program. Such a program is in itself meaningless. They are guidelines. They are hardly suitable as a basis for party politics, but should anyone harbor the vain hope that something can be achieved through party politics, it must be borne in mind that these points must necessarily be your invariable guideline – in the sense that you cannot take positions in your political work that contradict these points. You don’t have to post them on the church door!

1. The highest task of any Danish cultural or political movement is the preservation of the fatherland, its independence, its language and culture, its customs and traditions, its territorial integrity and the uniqueness and continued biological existence of its population. This is a task that cannot be discussed and there can be no compromises of any kind. Anyone who does not follow this clear principle is a traitor and deserves punishment as such. At no point can one cooperate with anyone who does not recognize this task. Any participation in or support of efforts that alienate the Danish people from their culture and history and biological origins actively participates in undermining the nation.

2. In this context, it is necessary to realize that the survival of the people is a biological question. You cannot change the people through the integration of foreigners and pretend that you are preserving Denmark. Anyone who treats immigration solely as a question of economics, religion or culture is missing the point. Those who do so act either out of stupidity, inexcusable ignorance or because they act against their better judgment in an attempt to avoid being labeled racist, Nazi or otherwise disliked. These are often alibi points, such as wanting more adoption of foreign children or wanting Muslim immigration to be replaced by Christian negroes.

Denmark must remain the land of the Danes, and being Danish is not something you can become by passing a law in the Danish Parliament. Any integration of foreigners will inevitably lead to biological integration, which in the long term will destroy the basis for talking about a Danish people. Anyone who does not want to recognize racial and biological differences within and outside the people must be relegated to playing in the political sandbox at Christiansborg. Such forces are of no real relevance to a national opposition.

3. It is necessary to realize that the democratic form of government, so highly valued today, has become the most powerful weapon against the survival of our people. It is no longer a form of government, but an ideology, based on nebulous and unscientific ideas of universal human rights, which denies all the principles that it would be necessary to defend to ensure the preservation of the people. As an ideology, democratism is as totalitarian as communism or Nazism — there is complete freedom to discuss where the deck chairs on the deck of the Titanic should be placed, but there is no freedom to change course. Believing that this system can save us is naïve. To believe that it can be changed through elections is hopelessly naive. If elections changed anything, they would not be allowed. The current monolith of politicians, civil servants, bishops, priests, teachers and press have nothing to fear. Against it, Goebbels was a true dilettante! Together with the EU, it controls what people are allowed to think — and any party that does not think this way will be crushed if it contains even the slightest germ of success. Even an election victory of over 50% of the vote (which for any party is utopian) would not make the current elite hand over the keys to power.

4. It is necessary to realize that all the ideologies that today dominate the natural sciences as well as culture, education, politics, law and social sciences were conceived and propagated by ethnically self-conscious Jews who, together with their minions, effectively control society through a central role in the economy, entertainment industry and media, with the stated purpose of weakening the power, self-esteem and population health of White peoples in return for strengthening their own position. Anyone who, in his efforts to be a respectable nationalist, emphasizes his support for Israel against the Palestinians is choosing the greater evil over the lesser. When Denmark today is flooded not only by Palestinians, but by all sorts of foreign peoples, the responsibility can largely be placed with Jews. Islam is undoubtedly an evil, but its threat to Denmark and Europe will disappear with the disappearance of the foreign masses. Effective work to realize this vision is consistently opposed by Jews and Jewish organizations.

5. It is necessary to leave every form of Christianity behind, for it has prepared the ground for the destruction of the European peoples by robbing them of their own original religion and filling them with guilt, original sin and spiritual Judaism to such an extent that Christians have a Jew as their god and “savior.” Christianity has always opposed science and progress and today is further subverted by subversive forces to support everything that destroys the existence of our people. The Danish National Church could have been a bulwark against the Islamization of Denmark, but practice shows the exact opposite. The People’s Church is leading the effort to dismantle the nation. Having said this, however, it must be added that Christianity has left such an indelible mark on our history and culture that it has gained a degree of civil rights that cannot be overlooked. In a cultural battle between Islam and Christianity, there is no doubt where the national opposition stands. However, if Christianity is to have any chance of being part of the future, the Church must necessarily arrive at a form of Christianity and a church structure that actively supports the preservation of the nation. Otherwise, it will remain part of the problem.

6. It is necessary to realize that all the evils that nationalist Danes today complain about and seek to combat are the result of Hitler losing the Second World War. Had Hitler won the Second World War — or even better: Had World War II not happened — these evils would not exist today. Copenhagen would not have had 20% foreign inhabitants, billions of kroner and euros would not have been spent on foreign aid and refugees, Danes would still have had children (there would have been no pensioner hump), Africa would still have been under European control, and the people of this amazing continent would not have had to fear constant civil wars, violence and famine. Had the Germans won the war, there would certainly have been many things to complain about, but the biological existence of our people would not have been threatened and everything else can be restored.

7. It is necessary to realize that the Holocaust of the Jews is the means used today to suppress any national revival in Europe. By participating in the now completely overblown death cult of this new religion of the 21st century, the power of the Jews and the powerlessness of the White race is cemented. The right is held accountable for Hitler’s actions, while the left never has to discuss the 200,000,000 people murdered in the name of communism and equality, the memory of which rarely finds its way into the media.

8. It is necessary to realize that America and America’s intervention in Europe’s internal affairs has been to Europe’s misfortune – and that America’s continued power will lead to the destruction of the White race. America has not saved us twice in the last century, as a foolish, history-less politician who likes to act as a representative of national Denmark has claimed – it has twice prevented an internal settlement of European affairs. Without America’s intervention in the First World War, the warring parties would have had to recognize that neither was capable of defeating the other and would have had to make a peace that would have preserved the status quo in Western Europe. Germany would not have been humiliated, there would have been no war reparations, no economic collapse, no Hitler (!), no World War II, no “holocaust”, 50 million Europeans would not have been killed, there would have been no bombed cities, no destruction of European cultural values, no communism in half of Europe, no Berlin Wall, no Middle East conflict, no immigration of the 3rd world masses into Europe, no Third World masses in Europe, no developing countries in Europe. world masses in Europe, no development aid, no terrorism, no September 11 …… in short, none of everything that makes our existence poorer and threatens our future.

9. The European Union is an effective tool for the deliberate destruction of the Europe of peoples. Every effort emanating from the EU is aimed, directly or indirectly, at removing national borders, wiping out cultural, linguistic and biological differences between the many peoples of Europe, opening up Europe to immigration from the Third World and giving big business unimpeded access to plunder the peoples of Europe while sending jobs abroad. The EU has absolutely no popular legitimacy and must be fought in every conceivable way. It is today’s occupying power and the greatest evil facing national forces.

***

Many will arbitrarily exclaim to these points that this is “pure Nazism”. Well, if Nazism embraced the principles underlying the above points, then maybe it wasn’t so bad after all. Maybe it was worth thinking about? “Nazism” is one of the key words used to scare people away from the values that would ensure a proper foundation for their lives and future. “That’s what Hitler said,” roar Krasnik, Notkin and all their ilk whenever a national movement appears, and immediately it scatters again in all directions in terror. The word “Nazism” automatically conjures up mountains of corpses, rolling tanks, marching columns, smoking chimneys, bombed cities and the like, all of which can easily be attributed to Nazism. However, all of this belongs to history, which does not prevent Nazism from being based on eternal, natural principles that are obviously true and which no society can afford to ignore.

“Nazism” – or National Socialism, as it should rightly be called – only makes sense today as a historical phenomenon, strongly tied to the country and time in which it emerged. National Socialism is inextricably linked to Hitler, German tradition and German social conditions, which today are quite foreign to us. Anyone who wants to revive the fallen ideology should do themselves the favor of reading Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which strongly warns against giving artificial respiration to the past. Instead, it emphasizes the need to create a new movement born of the needs of the time and place, which can grow organically in the given society. All in all, today’s admirers of Adolf Hitler should be the first to read his book, which, even in the clumsy translation available in Danish, has much to offer. The inevitable consequence of a sensible reading must necessarily lead to the immediate dismantling of today’s undergrowth of ridiculous and in many cases abominable small groups who claim to be Adolf Hitler’s heirs without ever having familiarized themselves with what this might entail. These have done nothing to save the existence of the people – quite the opposite.

Today, we don’t want to go back to the 30s – we want to be part of the future. The past will never and must never return – the external conditions are far too different for that. Today’s problems are far more serious than anything Hitler faced. His task was mainly economic – today it is existential, and the popular foundation on which Hitler built his movement no longer exists. Patriotism and nationalism are no longer self-evident, but something to be argued for. However, none of this means throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A truth is a truth, no matter who says it. There were serious inherent flaws in the Third Reich that must never be repeated, but the values that must underpin the renewal of society if it is to survive in a form that ordinary people want to be part of are ancient. They can be found in the ancient cultures of India, Ancient Greece, Cicero’s Rome and classical conservatism, and today they can be scientifically substantiated in a way that only 50 years ago could only be dreamed of. The virtues and qualities that have been the foundation of European civilization for millennia (and there are no other civilizations in our sense!) are completely independent of who started from them and what the outcome has been. It is the task of future leaders to avoid the mistakes of the past and build a better and more lasting edifice on the foundations. This requires a good, thorough and unbiased study of history.

Today, the task seems hopeless. The terror against dissidents has developed in such a way that they can no longer lead a normal life with work, family and social interaction. This is why so few have the strength to defend Denmark – and why so many seek pseudo-alternatives that seem easier than the consistent resistance struggle. This cannot be changed immediately, and those who seek a political way out within the framework of the ruling system naturally deserve at least tacit support, while remembering the above 9 points. But the fact that a political enterprise requires compromise is already in the cards. Most Danes want the Denmark they know back – and it’s not Helle Thorning Schmidt’s Denmark – but they just want it to happen by itself, so that one morning they wake up and everything is back to normal. They don’t think too much about causes and culprits – and above all, they just want everything to be solved the nice way. We would all much prefer that, but it is not a likely outcome to the problems. As already mentioned, the current decision-makers and their lackeys will not voluntarily relinquish their position of power and magically transform themselves into useful and nationally-minded citizens working for the good of the people. This fairytale ending is naive. There will be a struggle for power, and a far-reaching showdown with the current “elite” will be necessary – and it will not be pretty or harmonious. But the alternative to the Danish people rising up and demanding Denmark back is far worse. If the Danes just stand by, we will slide towards a full-scale war in the streets between Danes and foreigners – and it will be very bloody, as many of our intruders are born with a Kalashnikov in their hands and have excellent military training, while Danes are generally alien to combat and the use of weapons. In addition, respect for human life is far lower among our guests than among us. They have grown up in or been influenced by societies where a human life is not worth much. They will therefore be in a very strong position in such a war. The only alternative is to dismantle Denmark without a fight, adopt Islam, destroy the pigs, close the liquor factories and breweries, burn the paintings in our museums, melt the statues, tear down the churches, raze our ancient monuments to the ground, burn our books and sheet music, let our girls be forced to marry immigrant types from the third world, so that we can finally be biologically exterminated. Sharia will be introduced, women will be stoned and men beheaded for religious offenses, and any concept of law will disappear. The natural sciences will die out, creativity will disappear. Intellectual activity will be centered on interpretations of the Koran, such as issuing new fatwas, for example, banning snowmen, and this will only be done in Arabic. If anyone wants to know what society will be like, we would recommend a trip to the Islamic State – a one-way ticket should suffice. Of course, there are still gentler versions of Islamic states to which a return ticket may be worthwhile – but their days are numbered too, see the developments in Turkey. It is not recommended to postpone your trip for too long.

All ideas of human rights, multiculturalism, humanism, tolerance etc. are – ironically – products of Western culture and are unfamiliar concepts as soon as we get to other peoples. The ideas are partly fine when practiced within a homogeneous society where people have the same set of values, but when extended to other peoples with a completely different agenda, they are suicide!

What can we do to prevent this sad fate for our homeland? There are, of course, the political parties – but as mentioned, such work has no chance of achieving the goal if it stands alone, but it can be a good platform for spreading the national message and recruiting qualified people. We are very much in the same situation as in 1940. Back then, a party whose goal was to kick the Germans out of the country would have had no place on earth. So they eventually resisted in a more tangible way – but not very successfully. At the time, however, they had powerful foreign supporters and a different kind of manpower – and success was eventually brought in from outside. Under no circumstances would armed action against today’s occupying troops have any significance in the sense that it would cause the foreigners to flee from the wide-open Danish treasury. In many cases, they come from countries where they are exposed to an immediate risk of death and mutilation on a daily basis – mass shootings in mosques or targeted assassinations would not make much of an impression, nor would they significantly affect the percentage of foreigners. They would only serve for self-gratification – and probably for the hidden joy of more people than you might think, but this joy would have no overall impact either. Today, it is also difficult to imagine that an armed uprising against the police and military with the aim of overthrowing the system would lead to any result. Such an attempt would be doomed from the start. One could rather imagine that liquidation actions against the worst traitors would make an impression, but they would largely serve to make those in power drop the mask and implement the absolute police state. Nor would such actions save Denmark in the current situation.

There is absolutely no way around the Danish people. Change is only possible if a significant proportion of the people want it. If the people don’t wake up and want the change and everything that goes with it, it will die and disappear from the world map within the next 50 years. It will be infinitely sad, but in that case it is inevitable. It is therefore important, first and foremost, to influence the part of the population that is still deeply loyal to the homeland. You don’t do this by shielding yourself in parties that separate you from the Danish people, but by participating in the life of the people and cultivating their culture. One of the things you can blame the Danish Association, the Danish People’s Party and other well-meaning organizations for is that there has only been a very modest cultural involvement, and the “Association for the Promotion of Danish Culture, Democracy, Language, History, Architecture and the Danish Song” has never been very successful in its endeavors, perhaps because it was strongly influenced by the church from the beginning, perhaps because it has been too intellectual and too little popular. Culture is not something that is just written in books, it is something that must be lived in daily life. Today, we need singing and folk dancing – the latter not as a sport with Danish championships, but as a natural part of our traditional culture. We need to maintain our language in the face of the increasing use of English in our daily lives, and we need to read our literature. We need a cultural manifestation. There is a need to raise awareness of the people at all levels.

The first place to start is with ourselves. You can only save the people if you love them. To love them, you must know them. To know them, you must understand their history, their culture, literature, music, dance and other expressions of their life. Any desire for change that is not based on a heartfelt desire to save the Danish people from certain doom is doomed from the start. This is about the collective – not about the enlarged ego of the individual.

Actually, the right wing is in the same situation as the dog that barks at passing cars every day. What would it actually do if one day it caught a car? What would the right wing in the broadest sense do if Helle Thorning Schmidt one day walked past Morten Uhrskov Jensen or Daniel Carlsen with the keys to the Prime Minister’s Office and said: “I give up. Now it’s your turn. Have fun!” The fact is that the right wing today has too little to offer – not just in terms of manpower, but also in terms of ideas and education. There are simply far, far too few qualified people to even dream of replacing the traitors who sit everywhere in the glands of society. It’s not enough to have political ambition – it takes much more. This is where the right needs to step in. Educating a real elite that can take the place of the traitors and that is aware of the principles listed here. However, this elite cannot allow itself to be exposed and subjected to the usual press hype.

The communist ’68ers did not win their influence by standing for election, but by marching through the institutions. National Danes must not end up on welfare, but must follow the same path. If you have the skills, you should study, settle down in a good job and quietly influence the world as much as you can. If you are a lawyer, you should apply to the courts and take them on. If you are an educator, you must constantly promote reason in your teaching and fight any politicization of something that should not be political. If you are a craftsman, you must acquire a position in society from which you have as much influence as possible on your local area. In any case, you should educate yourself to be able to take over key functions in society if the opportunity arises. Applying for positions in the police, military and national defense is a given. These institutions will be key to any change – however it comes about. Participate in your children’s school life and try with all your might to counteract the stultification of the state. Avoid childcare centers – nothing good comes from them. You should participate in the life of associations and everywhere firmly defend your ideals without engaging in political activity. In general, you should not participate in the political game for the sake of power, because you won’t get it, but to create respect and familiarity in the local community – and you don’t necessarily have to found new parties to do that. Above all, you don’t have to compromise on basic principles. Support the grumbling and discontent that exists in the people. Never miss an opportunity to speak your honest opinion about politicians and the state of society. If you have the opportunity, you should choose the occupation that gives you the most influence and the greatest independence and untouchability. When choosing employees and suppliers, always think of your peers and, as far as possible, boycott companies that employ non-nationals or foreigners. The latter is the most difficult as they enjoy special protected status, but as a customer this is not primarily your problem. Preferably put your money where it benefits Danes.

Finally, it is important to keep an eye on the traitors and their henchmen so that they are not forgotten the day national Denmark (might) rise. Just as the resistance movement during the previous occupation kept meticulous arrest lists of their opponents, national Danes should remember the non-national forces so that they do not escape accountability for their actions. The big fish are already known to everyone. It goes without saying that politicians and media personalities have a lot to answer for – they will not be forgotten under any circumstances. However, all the small fish who diligently contribute to the execution of the genocide of the Danes in their daily lives, in letters and associations and under the guise of their public positions in education, the judiciary, the church, etc. certainly deserve to be remembered and held accountable for their actions when the time is ripe.

None of these measures will change anything on their own – but together they will create a possible basis for the rescue of Denmark. We must always remember the upheavals in Eastern Europe in 1989-91. Not many people predicted them. Most people thought they were just ripples on the surface, but it was the people who rose up against the tyranny the Western powers had handed them over to in 1945. We all thought that after this upheaval there would be new and better times, but we were wrong. There was no national elite capable of taking the reins so that the previous rulers and their henchmen could easily continue under new auspices, with the result that the state of the world from a national perspective has deteriorated considerably.

The people can rise up in many ways and for many reasons, and the EU’s fragile fantasy economy could collapse in a matter of months once the ball starts rolling. A political situation could arise that suddenly changes the rules of the game completely. All things that are difficult to predict, but which may offer the chance for a change. However, in such a situation, the national wing must be ready to take up the challenge and bring about this change. It is therefore to be hoped that the collapse will not be immediate.

Freedom is never won cheaply, and it is never won through stupidity.

Povl H. Riis-Knudsen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Povl H. Riis-Knudsen https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Povl H. Riis-Knudsen2024-05-04 07:19:072024-05-04 08:48:28Some basic principles for the national struggle

Condition Red Revisited: White Male Erasure in Advertising

December 16, 2021/53 Comments/in Featured Articles, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy/by Edmund Connelly, Ph. D.

Condition Red Revisited: White Male Erasure in Advertising.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Edmund Connelly, Ph. D. https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Edmund Connelly, Ph. D.2021-12-16 10:50:192021-12-16 10:50:19Condition Red Revisited: White Male Erasure in Advertising
Page 1 of 26123›»
Subscribeto RSS Feed

Kevin MacDonald on Mark Collett’s show reviewing Culture of Critique

James Edwards at the Counter-Currents Conference, Atlanta, 2022

Watch TOO Video Picks

video archives

DONATE

DONATE TO TOO

Follow us on Facebook

Keep Up To Date By Email

Subscribe to get our latest posts in your inbox twice a week.

Name

Email


Topics

Authors

Monthly Archives

RECENT TRANSLATIONS

All | Czech | Finnish | French | German | Greek | Italian | Polish | Portuguese | Russian | Spanish | Swedish

Blogroll

  • A2Z Publications
  • American Freedom Party
  • American Mercury
  • American Renaissance
  • Arktos Publishing
  • Candour Magazine
  • Center for Immigration Studies
  • Chronicles
  • Council of European Canadians
  • Counter-Currents
  • Curiales—Dutch nationalist-conservative website
  • Denmark's Freedom Council
  • Diversity Chronicle
  • Folktrove: Digital Library of the Third Way
  • Human Biodiversity Bibliography
  • Instauration Online
  • Institute for Historical Review
  • Mondoweiss
  • National Justice Party
  • Occidental Dissent
  • Pat Buchanan
  • Paul Craig Roberts
  • PRIVACY POLICY
  • Project Nova Europea
  • Radix Journal
  • RAMZPAUL
  • Red Ice
  • Richard Lynn
  • Rivers of Blood
  • Sobran's
  • The European Union Times
  • The Occidental Quarterly Online
  • The Political Cesspool
  • The Right Stuff
  • The Unz Review
  • Third Position Directory
  • VDare
  • Washington Summit Publishers
  • William McKinley Institute
  • XYZ: Australian Nationalist Site
NEW: Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Culture of Critique

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Separation and Its Discontents
A People That Shall Dwell Alone
© 2025 The Occidental Observer - powered by Enfold WordPress Theme
  • X
  • Dribbble
Scroll to top

By continuing to browse the site, you are legally agreeing to our use of cookies and general site statistics plugins.

CloseLearn more

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only