Featured Articles

When Jews Define Fascism

Concluding one of America’s more infamous obscenity trials in 1964, Justice Potter Stewart absolved a controversial French motion picture with an opinion that has since passed into common parlance: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.” The opinion was celebrated at the time as a victory for freedom of expression, and paved the way for a later deluge of Western cultural degradation. Of greater significance, however, is the fact that almost 60 years later “I know it when I see it” has become a political philosophy in its own right, adopted and pursued by a radical Left intent on curtailing that very same freedom by claiming an exclusive and unaccountable ability to define Fascism. This was the starkest message from The Burkean’s unprecedented recent Irish Antifa Project, which was designed to infiltrate and expose self-styled Antifa networks in mainstream Irish academia and politics.

In my view, the most predictable revelation from the Irish Antifa Project was the extent of historical and cultural ignorance among the profiled activists. None of the intellectually and professionally mediocre individuals exposed by The Burkean appeared capable of articulating what Fascism was, or is alleged to be today. Fascism instead seems to have been adopted by these non-entities as a vague catch-all for anything touching upon capitalism, conservatism, religion, or tradition. Equally vague are the proposed activist methodologies of these individuals, which range from the compiling of databases with the names of those deemed to be Fascists, to tentative but deniable support for violence. With the exception of a small number of fanatical Jews like Trinity College student Jacob Woolf, “anti-Fascism” has evidently been adopted by the majority of those concerned as a kind of half-hearted virtue signaling hobby or political side gig, albeit one with sinister potential.

Unfortunately, the problems posed by an uninformed, unaccountable, and unhinged “anti-Fascist” radical Left aren’t helped by the fact confusion about the nature of Fascism is endemic in society as a whole. There are essentially three traditions when it comes to explaining Fascism. One can be found within Fascism itself, and demonstrates how self-defined Fascists see themselves. This material is overwhelmingly historical. Another tradition can be found in contemporary mainstream academia and, although biased, it is at least academic in style, serious, and relatively comprehensive. The work of the late Roger Griffin is perhaps the best available in the English language in terms of this tradition, and is also largely concerned with history. The third tradition, on the other hand, is popular, highly politicised, always concerned with contemporary politics, and is abridged to the point of being a pop-Left caricature of serious studies of Fascism. It is particularly problematic because it has tremendous traction among the masses and, despite being propaganda for extremist politics of its own sort, always presents itself as objective and neutral.

The individuals profiled by The Burkean are unquestionably disciples of the latter tradition, a recent example of which is Jason Stanley’s How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them (2018). Stanley, a Jewish professor at Yale whose background is in language and epistemology and not history or politics, hasn’t published any peer-reviewed material on Fascism or anti-Fascism, but his 2018 book proved a moderate publishing sensation because it represented a thinly veiled attack on the Trump administration. The same administration provoked similar ill-conceived and unhelpful monographs on Fascism from Cass Sunstein (Can it Happen Here?), Madeleine Albright (Fascism: A Warning), and Harvard duo Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (How Democracies Die). All of these individuals are Jews, and this is not a coincidence. In fact, since the production of Leon Trotsky’s Fascism: What it is and How to Fight It (compiled between 1922 and 1933) and the Frankfurt School’s project on the “Authoritarian Personality,” Jews have been at the forefront of paving the cultural, as well as political, path to Antifa activity. They do so by bastardising public understanding of the nature of Fascist politics, thereby shaping “anti-Fascism” as a vehicle for the undermining of the White nation. When it comes to Fascism, “Jews know it when they see it,” a pronouncement we are all encouraged to accept without question.

Jewish Definitions of Fascism

A common theme in influential books like Stanley’s, destined for a modicum of success in the paperback mass market thanks to dramatic titles and relentless marketing, is their incredibly—and deliberately—vague definition of Fascism. These Jewish activists know this, of course, but they push ahead regardless. Stanley, for example, excuses the gaps and logical leaps inherent in his dubious study by arguing that “generalization is necessary in the current moment.” But if he is defining the “current moment” as Fascist under his generalized definition, isn’t he simply using generalization to excuse the same generalization? Isn’t this tantamount to saying to his readers: “The present moment is so obviously Fascist that we really don’t need to define Fascism”? Such considerations don’t slow Stanley down for a second, and this celebrated Yale professor slips off the hook to pronounce, even more unhelpfully, “I have chosen the label “Fascism” for ultranationalism of some variety.” What variety? What’s his definition of “ultranationalism”? It doesn’t matter. What is clear in texts like Stanley’s is that you aren’t here to be encouraged to think or ask questions, but to absorb a discourse and accept a dogma. The authority behind such demands stems predominantly from emotional blackmail — Stanley cashes in his card as the son of “Holocaust survivors,” and explains that “My family background has saddled me with difficult emotional baggage. But it also, crucially, prepared me to write this book.” His lack of education and reading in the subject is therefore apparently more than compensated for in the fact he is emotionally distressed by it. Right.

Jason Stanley: Bravely struggling with his emotional baggage

Not only are Jewish definitions of Fascism deliberately inadequate and disingenuous, they’re often completely wrongheaded. Stanley in his first chapter “The Mythic Past,” for example, describes Fascist propaganda as relying on a unique blend of mythic, romanticised, and normally rural evocations of the past, and that the same propaganda offers a future return to this idyll. It goes without saying that this provides an extremely convenient way for Jewish and Leftist activists to attack almost all genuine conservatives as Fascists. But is such propaganda even inherently Fascist or even right-wing? We might consider the following quote from a well-known historical figure: “The position of the English agricultural labourer from 1770 to 1780, with regard to his food and dwelling, as well as to his self-respect, amusements etc., is an ideal never attained again since that time.” The ideologue behind this quote proposed a future in which the national community of citizens enjoyed something like a return to this pastoral idyll, filling their days with productive work, music, and leisure (“hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise [literature] in the evening”). It really is quite a vision. But the problem is that these proposals aren’t from the works of Sir Oswald Mosley, but from Karl Marx’s Capital and The German Ideology, and they were a key aspect of the early promotion of Communism. The idea that Fascism uniquely appeals to notions of making one’s country “great again” is an unsophisticated trope and, ultimately, a political weapon.

The truth of the matter is that politicised nostalgia and visions of national rebirth are common to ideologies of all stripes, and are useless as tools for examining the specific nature of genuine political and cultural manifestations of Fascism. The only possible exception is Roger Griffin’s highly nuanced theory of palingenetic ultrationationalism, which is corrupted and glossed in Jewish treatments of the subject in order to indict all expressions of White discontent in modernity. Presentations of ideal pasts and futures are quite obviously utilised by all political actors keen to exploit the public instinct to reject the status quo. Barack Obama’s campaigns based on “Hope,” “Change,” and “Progress,” and Trump’s “MAGA” are not substantially different in style or method, the only significant dissimilarity being the demonising of the latter and the feverish and irrational presentation of its ethos as an early symptom of an impending Fascist takeover. The preoccupation of Cultural Marxist anthropologists with describing putatively utopian modes of life in primitive societies can also clearly be seen as a call to “make society great again” by demolishing capitalism, the family, etc. The oldest and most profound political expression of resurrecting a glorious past rooted in the land is, of course, not even to be found in European Fascism at all, but in the quintessential palingenetic ultranationalism of Zionism, a subject strangely never covered by our Jewish authors, presumably because of other “difficult emotional baggage.”

Similar definitions of Fascism, this time refracted through a lens of Leftist pop-culture garbage, can be found in Cass Sunstein’s 2018 Can It Happen Here? Sunstein’s expertise is ostensibly law, though his most successful work is apparently The World According to Star Wars (2016). In another time and context, someone like Sunstein would cut a ridiculous figure, in much the same way that the Romans found it hilarious that the people squatting in the hovel that was 1st century Judea regarded themselves as a superior nation. Sunstein has shaped his career as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School around such efforts as inaugurating a “celebrate tax day” and ending all government recognition of marriage. But Star Wars books and outlandish schemes aside, Sunstein is a deeply sinister individual. He is particularly concerned by “conspiracy theories,” and has developed policy suggestions that governments engage in the “cognitive infiltration of extremist groups” by entering “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.” In other words, Sunstein is a major contributor to the concept of “thought crime” and a high-profile advocate for the same kind of law enforcement online disinformation and entrapment activity that regularly snares exuberant White teenage gamers and presents them to the media as right-wing terrorists.

Cass Sunstein: “We need a cognitive infiltration of extremist groups”

Sunstein edited, and contributed to, Can It Happen Here?, along with a motley of other Jews, including Eric Posner, Jack Balkin, Tyler Cowen, Jack Goldsmith, Tom Ginsburg, Noah Feldman, Jonathan Haidt, Bruce Ackerman, Jon Elster, Martha Minow, David Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone. In fact, of the 17 essays comprising the volume, 13 are written by Jews. One of the non-Jews is Sunstein’s Irish-American wife, the shabbos goy and ADL darling Samantha Power, and two are Muslims. Can It Happen Here?, subtitled Authoritarianism in America, is therefore little more than an exercise in Jewish paranoia and a glaring example of the way in which Jews invoke vague caricatures of Fascism in order to attack the traditional structures of White nations. Posner, for example, cites Trump’s hostility to elements of the press and the fact his initial success occurred somewhat outside the two-party structure of American politics as sufficient evidence of a Fascist threat. In other words, Jews, who dominate the press and have very significant financial interests in the trajectories of both major parties, regard anything not fully within their control as tantamount to Fascism.

The same fearmongering yet vague template is followed by Levitsky and Ziblatt in How Democracies Die (2018), which opens with the authors declaring that authoritarianism has been for them an “occupational obsession.” Levitsky and Ziblatt “feel dread … We worry.” What has them most worried is “intimidation of the press” and the fact some politicians “view their rivals as enemies.”  Trump terrifies due to his “clear authoritarian tendencies.” He is said to follow in an American tradition of “extremist demagogues” that includes “Henry Ford, Huey Long, Joseph McCarthy, and George Wallace.” America “failed the test” when it elected Trump in November 2016.  Like Sunstein and Posner, Levitsky and Ziblatt are especially concerned by “extreme partisan polarization,” which is another way of saying that they are very worried that the two main political parties may actually diverge in a meaningful way from one another and therefore run the risk of engaging in a genuine politics. Since the same complaint is made by Stanley and Sunstein, we might assume that Jews are most comfortable with two-party systems in which the parties and their policies are almost indistinguishable and in which there is a high level of ideological consensus. Anything outside this comfort zone is Fascism.

Levitsky and Ziblatt: “We feel dread … We worry.”

Equally terrified is Madeleine Albright, whose Fascism: A Warning (2018) is derived from an identical playbook to that employed by Stanley, Sunstein, Levitsky, and Ziblatt. Albright opens the 2019 edition of her book with a new preface in which she poses as a benevolent granny, writing with detachment and objectivity, she claims, at her “farm” in Virginia. Granny Albright, who once declared the Serbs to be “disgusting” and opined that starving half a million Iraqi children via UN sanctions was “worth it,” now spends her days tending to her tomatoes and pondering with great bemusement why a reporter recently branded her a “war mongering ghoul.” As she observes the serenity of the evergreens around her, it is quite the mystery why multicultural America seems to be “at each other’s throats.” We might think that Granny Albright could answer such a question by leaving rural Virginia and moving to America’s multicultural heartlands. But no, from her safe and isolated vantage point she has it all figured out. Her answer is simple, and has nothing to do with the fact multiculturalism is itself a poisonous doctrine —  multiculturalism isn’t working because Donald Trump and Fascism are on the verge of a devastating takeover. But what is Fascism? This is never clear anywhere in the book. Albright vaguely explains that Fascism is a “spread of anti-democratic trends.” [Translation: “The controlled two-party system has been weakened”] Fascist “attitudes” develop when “the perception grows that everybody lies.” [Translation: “The goyim know”] Fascism is “a doctrine of anger and fear.” [Translation: “I’m worried. Shut it down.”]

Andrew Rawnsley, Guardian journalist, aware of the this glaring weakness in the book, interviewed Albright prior to writing his review: “I suggest to her that the book struggles to offer a satisfactory definition of fascism. ‘Defining fascism is difficult,’ she responds. ‘First of all, I don’t think fascism is an ideology. I think it is a method, it’s a system’.” In other words, Fascism is a label that can be applied to any kind of politics that unsettles Jews and offers authentic alternative political methodologies. By refusing to acknowledge Fascism as a specific historical political ideology with identifiable and fixed traits, Albright and the other Jewish activists mentioned here can free it up as a system of mere “methods” that can then be interpreted in general terms in order to attack those elements of White society deemed oppositional to Jewish interests. So-called Antifascism, which draws all of its cultural power from this kind of Jewish propaganda, is therefore not against Fascism at all, but against any “methods” or “trends” that aren’t conducive to Jews.

Madeleine Albright: Wrote a book about something she can’t define

Stanley’s book is an excellent guide to Jewish paranoia about the “methods” hinted at by Albright. His text is divided into chapters titled “The Mythic Past,” “Propaganda,” “Anti-Intellectual,” “Unreality,” “Hierarchy,” “Victimhood,” “Law and Order,” “Sexual Anxiety,” “Sodom and Gomorrah,” and, since Jews inevitably view all dissent from their interests as leading ultimately to outlandish forms of mass murder, the final chapter is headed “Arbeit Macht Frei.” Each of these chapters deals with entirely subjective material and ideas, and there is no serious engagement with any scholarly literature on historical Fascism.

As discussed above, “the mythic past” is only a problem for Jews like Stanley when the past in question isn’t conducive to Jewish goals. Fictional multicultural pasts where ancient “Cheddar Man” Britons had dark skin, Africans lived in England before the English, and Whites demonstrated unique evil, are currently the height of intellectual and cultural fashion. These are the versions of “the mythic past” that Jews celebrate and promote. On the other hand, conceptions of the past as involving mono-ethnic cultures, celebrations of European racial glory, and acknowledgement of White group achievement are branded Fascist and beyond the pale. In the Jewish vision, the histories of Europeans are irredeemably shameful and therefore any attempt to make one’s nation “great again” is both irrational (“they were never great in the first place!”) and threatening. In this reading, all positive reflections on the European past are part of the Fascist methodology and should therefore be ruthlessly opposed. When Jews like Stanley and Albright include references to “the mythic past” in their “warnings” about Fascism they are in fact warning and shaming Whites against asserting their own interests and group pride.

The same framework is employed in discussing the alleged propaganda and “anti-intellectual” qualities of Fascism. Stanley argues that Fascists “attack and devalue education, expertise, and language.” This argument is, at best, entirely subjective and at worst complete nonsense. The idea that Fascists have been against intellectualism in general is simply ridiculous. As John Whittam writes in his Fascist Italy:

Fascism suffered not from the lack of ideas but from too many. Despite their rhetoric and pronounced hostility towards the intellectuals of the old liberal establishment, Futurists, syndicalists, ex-socialists, and even the ras professed an ideology and invariably had access to a newspaper where their views could be expressed. After the conquest of power one of the major problems was the formulation of an ideology from the bewildering array of distinctive ideologies within the Fascist movement.[1] [emphasis added]

Underlying Stanley’s accusatory statement is the simple fact that Fascists oppose liberal, left-wing, and Jewish intellectualism. Jewish activists like Stanley believe, of course, that theirs are the only legitimate and authentic intellectual activities in the public sphere. An attack on their position is therefore seen as an attack on all genuine intellectualism. The accusation that Fascists are anti-intellectual thus speaks of a profound arrogance in the accuser.

Equally revealing are Stanley’s chapters on “Sexual Anxiety” and “Sodom and Gomorrah.” These chapters are more or less an apologetic for Weimar-style sexual degeneracy, and insinuate that all attempts to prevent descent into such an abyss are pathological and Fascist. Some interesting context in this regard can be found back in 2016 when Stanley became embroiled in controversy after a Facebook exchange with fellow Jewish academic Rebecca Kukla, of Georgetown University, was widely disseminated. The pair had been discussing Richard Swinburne, an Orthodox Christian philosopher, and were incensed after Swinburne addressed the Society of Christian Philosophers and lectured on Christian ethics, including the religion’s stance on homosexuality. Swinburne made the argument that homosexuality could be understood as an illness, even a form of disability, since it acted against the otherwise natural imperative to reproduce. Stanley, in a conversation with other Jewish academics, accused Swinburne of “promoting homophobia,” paving the way for another Holocaust, and then finished his tirade with “Fuck those assholes. Seriously.” The charming Dr. Kukla, presumably equally engaged in employing vigorous intellectualism against the Fascist encroachment of Prof. Swinburne, added, “Those douche tankards can suck my giant queer cock.”

Rebecca Kukla: Stunning and brave intellectual fighting against Fascist anti-intellectuals

When the exchange went viral, both Stanley and Kukla scattered like cockroaches under torchlight, hiding under pity narratives and accusations of anti-Semitism. In a remarkable piece worth quoting here at length, Stanley wrote shortly afterwards:

I wanted to address the situation that has arisen from the series of articles in right-wing media outlets about me, and then me and Professor Kukla, that resulted from a private Facebook exchange being published and taken out of context … I was almost always the only Jewish person in my classes growing up. In my high schools in tenth and eleventh grade, I was the first Jewish person to attend. I am very familiar with the isolation that is involved, even when there is no overt discrimination (though I grew up being asked if I had horns and such like, this was ignorance and not malice). It is woven into the tapestry of my existence what it is like to be in a minority faith among a majority … My central concern right now is entirely about our gay colleagues in academia who have been watching this episode in horror, rightly concerned that any complaints about discrimination they may raise, even in private spaces, will result in the kind of incredibly intense retribution that Rebecca Kukla and I have been singled out and subject to over the past week. And those concerns would be legitimate. I need to end with the issue of anti-Semitism. On my public post, someone posted a disturbing comment about Swinburne’s death. I contemplated deleting it but then wanted to wait to see if anyone would ‘like’ it before addressing its horrors (no one did). It is hard to avoid the suspicion that the media discussion starting with the September 28th piece in The American Conservative, and then the Washington Times, is straightforwardly anti-Semitic. How did a non-story about the complexity of communication that results when screenshots from private conversations are made public, become a national story about two leftist Jewish professors and the dangers they pose? At first, the story was solely about me. Then, the other Jewish philosopher who posted on that thread, Rebecca Kukla, was also targeted. What ensued was a terrible anti-Semitic narrative, channeling a virulent 20th century form of anti-Semitism.

When I first read this piece, I have to confess without exaggeration that I laughed so hard I was literally gasping for air. It positively drips with a comic level of Jewish stereotype. Consider the speed with which Stanley morosely explains how he felt as “the only Jew in the class.” Observe the fake worry about the “Other,” in this case his “gay colleagues.” And reflect on the final, truly beautiful, example of the shameless Jewish recourse to the protective embrace of the anti-Semitism accusation — and not just any anti-Semitism but that infamous “virulent” kind. Every ingredient of “crying out as they strike you” is present here in perfect, distilled form. All my differences with him aside, Stanley is to be congratulated on being an excellent student of his people’s craft.

When we therefore read Stanley’s chapters on “Sexual Anxiety” and “Sodom and Gomorrah” we know precisely the kind of attitudes that our esteemed Yale professor brings to the table. He advances a theory that Fascists merely pretend to be upset about the rape of White women in order to reinforce the patriarchy. Take, for example, his outlandish claim that “The crime of rape is basic to fascist politics because it raises sexual anxiety and an attendant need for protection of the nation’s manhood by the fascist authority.” For Stanley, all rhetoric with the purpose of supporting stable, growing White families is Fascist, along with any attempts to challenge the “liberation” of women into sterility, promiscuity, vacuous careerism, grooming gangs, and abortion. But the deeper problem here is that there is no serious literature on any such fixation on rape within Fascism, and Stanley seems to pluck his concept of rape as “basic to fascist politics” from thin air. In reality, antifascist propaganda has been noted many times in the scholarly literature for its reliance on rape metaphors to attack the psychological appeal of Fascism (e.g. “Fascism rapes the mind of the masses”[2]). We can quite easily surmise that Stanley is probably aware that his argument is nonsense, and that he simply prefers to stigmatise any attempt to protect White women. The same methodology is employed when Stanley proposes that homosexuality and race-mixing are inherently good, being valiant sins “against Fascist ideology.” This is what now passes for an education at Yale.


Stanley, Sunstein, Levitsky, Ziblatt, and Albright have produced quite typical examples of Jewish propaganda disguised as “anti-Fascist” literature. The key features of such works are invariably a vague definition of Fascism, an attempt to relate “warnings” to some aspect of contemporary politics, melodramatic admonitions about a putative future violent catastrophe that must be avoided, and maudlin appeals to personal family history and “emotional baggage.” Underlying the surface veneer, these works are highly focussed efforts to pathologise aspects of White culture and politics deemed oppositional to Jewish interests. These efforts, and their framing, are quite obviously derived from Cultural Marxism, especially Adorno’s work with the Frankfurt School on The Authoritarian Personality, and from earlier forms of Jewish activism witnessed from the end of the 19th century and culminating in Weimar Germany (e.g. the work of Magnus Hirschfeld). The family, the acknowledgement of heterosexuality as culturally and biologically normative and preferential, the desirability of mono-ethnic cultures, and the acknowledgement of inequality among human beings are reframed in this kind of “warning literature” as inherently Fascistic.

It is very worrying that our culture has bequeathed a great deal of respect and legitimacy to Jewish intellectuals, especially in relation to the subject of Fascism. We have allowed them to assert that “they know it when they see it.” The fundamental crisis of our civilization is that they see it everywhere, and they won’t rest until this phantom of their paranoia, and us with it, are abolished.

[1] J. Whittam, Fascist Italy, (New York: Manchester University Press, 1995), 81-2.

[2] See, for example, S. Chakotin, The Rape of the Masses: The Psychology of Totalitarian Political Propaganda (1940).


Ellie Williams Case Reveals How Britain Tries to Cover Up Grooming Gang Rape

We all know that Britain has a serious grooming gangs problem, involving gangs of mainly Pakistani men grooming, raping, and pimping underage or teenage English girls.

We also know that the British authorities are terrified that news of this will destroy the “sacred” myth of multicultural harmony, with English people finally getting so enraged by this evil that even uneasy coexistence will be an impossibility.

From this it is easy to deduce exactly what the British authorities will attempt to do in grooming gang cases. Namely they will try to stop the abuse happening as quietly as possible, with the emphasis squarely on “as quietly as possible.” In short, they are more interested in covering things up or damage limitation than in dealing with the real problem — although they probably want to do that as well.

The ongoing case of Ellie Williams in the Northern English and Labour-run town of Barrow-in-Furness suggests this is exactly what is happening. Here there has been a long investigation into allegations of grooming and rape gangs that basically went nowhere, with a compliant media playing along. As an additional safeguard, one of the alleged victims, Ellie Williams, was muted by counter accusations of making false allegations. So much for #BelieveAllWomen when the victim is a working-class White girl and the alleged criminals are Muslim men.

Here is the Guardian being forced to report on this case after public disturbances broke out in the town:

An MP has appealed for calm after protests in a Cumbrian town in support of a teenager accused of lying about being raped by a grooming gang.

A harrowing Facebook post in the name of a 19-year-old from Barrow-in-Furness went viral last week, alleging she had been trafficked for sex across the north of England for years.

The post said the latest assault had taken place last Tuesday, in which the woman was allegedly raped by three men and beaten as a punishment for not attending their “parties” during the coronavirus lockdown.

Two days later she was in court being remanded in custody. She was sent to jail to await trial after Barrow magistrates found she had broken bail conditions imposed after she was charged with perverting the course of justice earlier this year.

She is accused of making false allegations about five men and falsifying evidence about rape and sexual assault between October 2017 and October 2019. […]

Det Ch Supt Dean Holden of Cumbria police insisted in a video message last week that officers had conducted a year-long investigation alongside the National Crime Agency and found no evidence of sex grooming gangs in Barrow.

The officer’s remarks fell on deaf ears as graphic photographs purporting to show the woman’s injuries were widely shared online as supporters demanded action.

What we can reasonably deduce from this is that the police investigated the allegations of a grooming gang in the town but could not — or would not — find enough “hard evidence” to follow through.

This is probably because it’s a pretty normal part of life in the UK now for teenage White girls to be pimped out by Muslim gangs. The assumption is that the girls are willing participants, unless clear evidence exists to the contrary.

There is indeed an element of willingness in crimes like this, with the victims — usually children from poor or broken homes — being lured in by initially friendly male attention, presents, drink, drugs, etc. This is why they are called “grooming gangs” instead of just “rape gangs,” which they also are. But this voluntary element is also intermixed with increasing amounts of violence, abuse, intimidation, and outright degradation as the girls fall deeper into the traps created by these gangs.

In this case, Ellie Williams appears to have rebelled against the system. She was clearly extremely unhappy with the police’s inability to make progress in their “investigation” and with their apparent heavy-handed attempts to shut her up, especially as, she claims, the gang continued to abuse her. This led her to make a post on social media about her unhappy situation that went viral, and which therefore breached the conditions that required her silence in the case.

Her post included convincing photos of the injuries she had suffered at the hands of the gang and explained that she had been attempting to use the coronavirus lockdown to distance herself from them, but that they had responded by increased violence and abuse:

“I think this is the hardest post Im ever going to write” Williams wrote on Facebook on the 19th of May. “Last night I went missing as some of you may be aware as Lucy shared it. Sorry for concerning people I’m safe now. I didn’t want to share this because I’m scared of the judgement that will come with it, it’s why I keep quite about what has happened to me, but people have asked me to tell my story. When people have asked why I have had a black eye or bruises I’ve made every excuse, from falling over to banging it on a door. I didn’t want to share this but people need to know about this local and very real issue. People need to be looking out for young girls and protecting them. If me sharing my story helps raise awareness and helps just one person then it will make this worth while.

Yesterday I was put into the back of a car, taken to an address to have sex with 3 Asian men. Afterwards I was beaten because I was in debt to these men for not attending “party’s” for over 7 weeks due to crona virus. The organisers of the party decided to beat me to teach me a lesson. They decided that I don’t learn from being battered as I’ve received beatings before but “still continuing to make the same mistakes” so they decided to try and cut my finger off! They then continued screaming in my face, waving a knife around saying they would kill me.

These are evil yet clever men. They know how to manipulate, convince and threaten girls into staying, when they can’t they use extreme violence! I used to believe that these people loved me, I realise now that they used me for their own gain and profit. They have beaten me on multiple occasions sometimes for no reason at all. They have given me drugs to the point I was nearly addicted to herion! They have stripped me naked, beaten me and dumped me in the middle of nowhere with nothing, I mean nothing, no money, phone, ID, clothes, shoes, nothing! They did this once in winter we’re I got found with bad hypothermia. They have broken my ribs, many bones in my face, they have split my ear, cut my throat, attempted to cut my boobs and nipples  off, they have carved words into my body, branded me with letters, they have dislocated my elbow, they have stabbed me, they have burnt me and used me as an ashtray to stump cigarettes out, they have beaten me black. I have had a bleed on the brain from a head injury, I have lost some vision in one of my eyes from being smacked so badly. Now I have had my finger cut. They have put lit petrol rags and threatening letters thru my letter box, they have followed me home, tried to drown me, strangled me and they have stalked me. They have had guns they have waved around and held to my head. They have abused me in every way possible. They have emotionally abused me calling me every name. It got to the point we’re I was being abused all the time and being hit and hurt weekly! I am incredibly lucky not to be dead already! I thought the only way I could escape this life was to marry one of them, get pregnant or kill myself.

I used to just laugh these situations off, pretend like I was invisible and I would always be okay There’s only so long you can pretend everything is alright before you break. I did break and tried to kill myself to escape. I lost all my self respect and I didnt  actually care if I was killed because at least then all of this would be over. I know now that this has gone to far and everything is not okay. I have scares across my body that won’t go away but even worse I have memories that won’t disappear that I can’t forget!

This has been years of me being trafficked to places across Manchester, Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cumbria. Mostly Leeds, Huddersfield, Oldham, Preston, Blackpool, Lancaster and Morcombe. I have also been to other places as well as attending “party’s” locally in Barrow. This is to have sex with Asian men with me receiving nothing for it. I am not the only girl in barrow who has gone thru this or is going thru this. I know plenty of girls involved…

She clearly hoped that her post would reinvigorate the year-long investigation mentioned by the Guardian, and even advised other victims to contact the police:

I want to encourage any other girl to go to the police and speak and also remind them that this isn’t a normal life. I hope me sharing this means that people can notice signs. If anyone suspects a girl to be involved, report it to teachers, social services, child line, police, parents. Parents gain trust with your children so they won’t be afraid to tell you things, so they don’t hide things, so they don’t become secretive! Don’t cause unnesassary drama which will push them away from you but closer to there abusers.

The authorities’ panicked response, however, was to rush her to court and remand her in custody, awaiting trial for “perverting the course of justice.”

The legal rationale for this kind of action is that media coverage of a case before a trial will somehow prejudice potential jurors and make them incapable of processing evidence and testimony.

This is patently absurd. Instead this weasel-worded phrase is just a modern British euphemism for “We don’t want you to talk publicly about this delicate case until we make it go away,” and is constantly deployed to prop up Britain’s dysfunctional multicultural state. The compliant British media, as ever, is happy to go along with this, and only ever comments on cases like this when they are forced to.

The public reaction in this instance is heartening. There have been online campaigns, fund-raising drives, and somewhat rowdy public protests.

This suggests that each time the authorities try to make cases like this “go away,” they travel less and less, and soon return. The irresistible force of the establishment’s desire to protect the myth of multicultural Britain may be about to meet the immovable object of pent-up White working-class rage.

Moral Outrage as a Sign of Trustworthiness and Long-Term Mate Value

One of the themes of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition is that the West is characterized by the paramount importance of moral communities rather than communities based on kinship. Another fundamental feature of the West is monogamous marriage. Thus I found it fascinating that a recent study undergoing the review process found that moral outrage, especially by males, acts as a cue to mate value in monogamous marriage.[1] Since women want mates who fit into their moral community, men who signal moral outrage compatible with the values of that community are seen as good marriage prospects. All of the subjects were White and they were given images of opposite-sex people—leading me to wonder whether the paper will be rejected because it implicitly endorses opposite-sex relationships and White-White relationships as standard.

That may seem completely over the top, but just recently two professors, one at Michigan State and one at the University of Colorado, wrote a paper promoting a moral panic because people may be unconsciously performing microaggressions during Zoom videoconferencing that is now so common because of the virus.

From the article:

“In a recent videoconference, we were asked the ‘most fun thing you’ve done with your family during quarantine.’ Participant answers ranged from ‘gardening with my husband’ to ‘dance parties with my family,’” Viveiros said.

MSU’s article explains that sharing these types of experiences “crowd out the experiences of people with minoritized social identities and that “asking about ‘fun family things’ prevented several Latinx attendees from sharing their experiences of losing family members to novel coronavirus.”

So I wouldn’t be surprised if the paper was rejected because it didn’t have a diverse subject sample and didn’t depict all the possible mating scenarios—male-male, female-female, with all the possible racial combinations. But I digress.

The images in the moral outrage experiment depicted White people as performing

behaviors designed to connote both anger toward perceived injustice and an effortful response to it that could not be construed merely as virtue signaling (e.g., advocacy work to pay NCAA athletes, working to end human trafficking, removing plastic straws from beaches to help sea turtles), or control activities (e.g., intramural sports, working as an RA, playing video games).

Since the most obviously exploited NCAA athletes are Black stars in football and basketball who pack the stadiums and field houses of college campuses and thereby paying the multi-million dollar salaries of the (predominantly White) coaches, this would bring up images of Whites behaving altruistically toward oppressed Blacks.

One can imagine how this plays out on college campuses. Boy meets girl and wants to show that he is a good long-term possibility as a mate. (If he wanted to communicate that he was a good short-term mate, he should be working on his biceps.) A good way to do that would be to be aware of what moral community the women is part of. And that would typically mean the moral community of the mainstream media and the academic left which is being propagandized by pretty much the entire faculty. So he might steer the conversation to current events and, knowing she is your typical liberal arts major, he could express moral outrage at the latest Trump outrage. Or at the Georgia shooting of the Black “jogger.” He would thereby indicate that he is not only a good person but someone who promises to be a pillar of their shared moral community, whether at the university or in the wider society of young urban professionals. And it would be even better if he told her that he is a sociology major and is donating his free time to a Black charity, thus implying that he is not merely virtue-signaling. All else equal, he’d be well on his way to establishing a relationship.

Of course, all else won’t be equal, and he might get docked for other qualities like earning potential—not good for sociology majors. But he could help himself in that department by saying he’s going to get into a good law school when he graduates. Not a bad strategy because having a social justice background would certainly be a leg up in the application process.

It’s interesting that all of the subjects in the experiment were White college students. I rather doubt that results would be similar for non-Western peoples. There is certainly overlap in some of the desired traits, like social status or potential social status (earning power). It is my observation that Blacks don’t judge politicians by their moral pronouncements or their behavior (like corruption), but by their appealing to Black identity and interests (welfare, the criminal justice system, affirmative action). Otherwise Maxine Waters would be long gone. The moral pronouncements of such people are strictly for White consumption.

Here’s a relevant passage from Chapter 8 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition:

The conviction of self-righteousness … need not be rational:

What feels like a conscious life-affirming moral choice—my life will have meaning if I help others—will be greatly influenced by the strength of an unconscious and involuntary mental sensation that tells me that this decision is “correct.” It will be this same feeling that will tell you the “rightness” of giving food to starving children in Somalia, doing every medical test imaginable on a clearly terminal patient … . It helps to see this feeling of knowing as analogous to other bodily sensations over which we have no direct control.[1]

In other words, the sensations of rightness and nobility act as psychological reflexes, and they are so pleasurable that people are inclined to seek them in their own right and without regard to facts or the long-run consequences to themselves.

Talk to an insistent know-it-all who refuses to consider contrary opinions and you get a palpable sense of how the feeling of knowing can create a mental state akin to addiction. … Imagine the profound effect of feeling certain that you have ultimate answers. … Relinquishing such strongly felt personal beliefs would require undoing or lessening major connections with the overwhelmingly seductive pleasure-reward circuitry. Think of such a shift of opinion as producing the same type of physiological changes as withdrawing from drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes.[2]

Feelings of moral righteousness may thus be pleasurable and lead to addiction. “Sanctimony, or a sense of righteous outrage, can feel so intense and delicious that many people actively seek to return to it, again and again.”[3]

The pleasure of knowing, with subjective certainty, that you are right and your opponents are deeply, despicably wrong. Or, that your method of helping others is so purely motivated and correct that all criticism can be dismissed with a shrug, along with any contradicting evidence.[4]

This type of sanctimoniousness is, of course, particularly common among the people labeled “Social Justice Warriors.” These are the people screaming “racist,” “misogynist,” “white supremacist,” etc. at any seeming violation of the norms of the moral communities of the left. And, because of the cultural hegemony of the left, such people can often be seen on social media (and in op-eds in the mainstream media) expressing their moral righteousness—a moral righteousness that fits with or extends the boundaries of the cultural left.

Another aspect of this is competitive altruism or competitive virtue signaling. Given that expressions of moral righteousness are typically communicated in a social setting and are aimed at solidifying or enhancing one’s reputation within a group, there may be competition for ever more extreme expressions of self-righteousness—even among people who are not biologically inclined to be high on the Love/Nurturance system. Extreme expressions of moral righteousness are not only addicting, they may also raise one’s status in a social group, just as it’s common for religious people to express “holier than thou” sentiments. Strongly religious people compete to be most virtuous in their local church. On the left, we see vegan fanatics shunning vegans who even talk to people who eat meat or eat in restaurants where meat is served—even family members. I imagine there is a dynamic within antifa groups—the shock troops of the establishment’s views on race and migration—where people who do not condone violence or are unwilling to crack heads themselves are ostracized or at least have much less status.

The result is a “feed forward” process in which the poles of political discourse move ever farther apart. For example, well-publicized attacks on Confederate statues have quickly morphed into attacks on Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Christopher Columbus. Sympathy among liberals for granting amnesty to illegal immigrants has morphed into calls by prominent Democrats to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE), make border crossing legal, and give them health care, driver’s licenses, voting rights, and ultimately citizenship. Inviting anyone remotely associated with conservative ideas—much less the racialist Right—to give a talk at a college campus has morphed from a tolerated rarity to a context for angry protests, rioting, injuries to conservatives, and damage to property.

Indeed, I suggest that this competitive virtue signaling is a major cause of the increasing polarization that we see in the United States and throughout the West in the age of social media. A Pew Research Center survey on changes in U.S. political culture from 1994–2017 found that the increasing divide between Republicans and Democrats, especially on immigration and race, was much more due to the median views of Democrats shifting left.[5]

Nevertheless, a theoretically similar phenomenon exists on the right as, for example, when individuals condemn others for being insufficiently militant or ideologically pure. However, because the left dominates the cultural landscape, such competitive virtue signaling has had most of its effects on the left. Such competitive virtue signaling from both the left and the right is highly characteristic of the social dynamics of social media sites and journalism.

People on the right face the danger of “doxxing,” having their identity and personal information made public. Hosts of shows in the mainstream media may have to cope with losing sponsors and hence their livelihood; e.g., as of March, 2019, Fox News host Tucker Carlson had lost around 30 sponsors, mainly because of his comments on immigration.[6] Or people may fear losing their job as a result of a phone call to their place of employment by a self-described “civil rights” organization such as the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League. This may well be why it is the left that has become more extreme in recent decades, whereas far too many on the right attempt to mollify their leftist critics by knuckling under to their moral righteousness.

The cultural domination of the left has meant that certain views are off-limits for all but the most daring. Thus, media sites like Breitbart and The Daily Caller, while definitely to the right of the mainstream media, avoid explicit advocacy of White identity and interests. Such constraints are much less apparent on the left, with the result that the left continues to get more and more extreme in their views. As I write, views on immigration noted above and on abortion (making abortion legal up until or even shortly after birth) that used to be virtually non-existent among Democrats are increasingly being espoused by mainstream Democrat politicians and pundits.

A critical consequence of this is racial polarization. White Americans have been shifting toward the Republican Party—the last Democrat president to get a majority of White votes was Lyndon Johnson in 1964. In general, this is an expression of implicit Whiteness (discussed below), as non-White groups coalesce in the Democratic Party. The point here is that such trends are likely to increase and polarization become more severe.

[1] Robert A. Burton, “Pathological Certitude,” in Barbara Oakley, Ariel Knafo, Guruprasad Madhavan, and David Sloan Wilson (eds.), Pathological Altruism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012): 131–37, 135.

[2] Ibid., 136.

[3] David Brin, “Self-addiction and Self-righteousness,” in Barbara Oakley, Ariel Knafo, Guruprasad Madhavan, and David Sloan Wilson (eds.), Pathological Altruism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012): 77–84, 80.

[4] Ibid., 80.

[5] Pew Research Center, “The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider” (October 5, 2017).


[6] Jeremy Barr, “Without Major Sponsors, Tucker Carlson’s Show Leans on Ads for Fox Programming,” The Hollywood Reporter (March 22, 2019).


[1] Mitch Brown et al., “Demonstrate Values: Behavioral Displays of Moral Outrage as a Cue to Long-Term Mate Potential,” unpublished ms, Fairleigh Dickinson University (2020).


The End of American Empire?

From Republic to Empire

America began life not as a democracy, but as an “aristocratic” republic. Under this model of elite governance, also known as federalism, civic participation was restricted to propertied White males. The basis for this particular exclusion was traditional English jurisprudence, which maintained autonomous agency was not possible without ownership of property. John Adams, a prominent Federalist, spoke for the majority of American Founding Fathers when he wrote:

“Such is the frailty of the human heart that very few men who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest …. [They are] to all intents and purposes as much dependent upon others, who will please to feed, clothe, and employ them, as women are upon their husbands, or children on their parents.”[i]

The Federalists were defeated in the presidential election of 1800 by the Democratic-Republicans, who ushered in the age of Jeffersonian democracy. There were more White males who had been accorded full suffrage in 1824, which saw the end of Jeffersonian democracy, than in 1800, when it began. The mid-1820s witnessed the dissolution of the Democratic-Republicans and the growth of the highly influential movement for Jacksonian democracy, which opposed the continued disenfranchisement of non-propertied White males. During the 1840s and 1850s, the movement continued to gather momentum until by 1860, White male suffrage was recognized in all 33 states of the American union. In the aftermath of the Civil War, male suffrage was further expanded to include Blacks. The effect of the new legislation was mitigated by post-Reconstruction state governments, which used grandfather clauses and literacy tests to keep Blacks away from the polls.

Women were accorded full suffrage in 1919, another watershed in American history. This would have far reaching consequences for contemporary US politics. Female suffrage would shift electoral voting patterns in a more leftward direction.[ii] The next piece of momentous legislation was the Civil Rights Act, passed in 1964, which dismantled racial segregation in the South, putting an end to freedom of association. Barry Goldwater, who opposed the Civil Rights Act because it violated states’ rights, lost the 1964 election to Lyndon Johnson, the architect of the modern American welfare state. In 1965, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act, delivering the final death knell to what was left of the old republic.

Meanwhile, decolonization had begun in 1945. This period of turmoil witnessed the emergence of independence movements and guerrilla insurgencies across the Third World, all of them agitating for the full evacuation of colonial personnel. In response, European metropoles dismantled their colonial empires, having lost the will to govern them after years of fighting in Europe and the Pacific.

Having abandoned their Third World outposts, the West’s deracinated and Judaized elites decided among themselves to transform their own nations into empires. This would be achieved by importing large numbers of migrants from Third World countries to live under a single sovereign authority. In the years since passage of the 1965 immigration act, America would place herself on a similar trajectory.

The Curse of Diversity

Once a nation embarks on a path to imperial hegemony, i.e., to become a multicultural, multiracial cesspool like Alexander’s Macedon, ancient Rome and Hapsburg Austria, its fate is already sealed in blood. Far from being an exception in this regard, the United States is representative of the problems that come with having a racially heterogeneous population. Indeed, racial conflict has been interwoven into the fabric of American history since the arrival of the first English settlers in 1607.

We must look to human biology to understand why diversity always fails. The separate evolutionary histories of each human race, which inhabited different ecological niches for thousands of years, entails average differences in intelligence and temperament between populations. This makes conflict inevitable when racial groups must live together under a single roof. As far as human relations are concerned, the greater the diversity, the greater the severity of the ensuing conflict. If group differences are too wide, the prospect for internal stability is diminished considerably.

In America, immigration policy has increased the potential for race conflict. The most destructive wave of mass migration so far, the post-1965 mass Third World immigration, would not have been possible without the mass European migration of 1880 to 1924, which brought inter-ethnic conflict, of the kind well-documented in the Culture of Critique, to American shores. As a result, there has been large-scale erosion of social cohesion in towns and cities across America. What was once a homogeneous ethno-racial community, a nation, is now the location of the world’s largest marketplace.

Without any social glue to hold America together, government must step in and resort to micromanagement of its citizens’ personal lives. By directly managing diversity, bureaucratic elites do their best to prevent America from exploding like a powder keg. Traditionally, management of diversity entailed maintaining the boundaries that separated whole neighborhoods, cities, regions and even nations largely populated by a single ethnic or racial group. For example, in America, segregation in the South and the tribal reservation system were meant to diffuse and manage the race problem. Soviet “multiculturalism” wasn’t integration of ethnicities, but a federal model that respected the ethnic diversity within each of its autonomous regions and socialist republics.

These days, American elites go against the conventional wisdom by forcibly integrating their own citizens, regardless of racial and ethnic differences. Since diversification is forced, limits must be imposed on freedom of speech to manage diversity. These are enforced by means of social ostracism and economic sanction. Critics of diversity have been deplatformed, fired from their jobs or have had their books removed from general circulation. As the high-profile case of James Watson demonstrates, even so much as expressing dissident views on race and intelligence in modern-day America can ruin careers and turn celebrities into virtual non-entities overnight.[iii] Multiculturalists, in their desire to create a nondiscriminatory and egalitarian society, have created an environment where the easily offended can dictate their own agendas with impunity.

The traditional Western canon is among the first casualties of political correctness, having been marginalized on colleges and universities across America in favor of gender and ethnic studies. Apparently, the achievements of the Western canon tower so highly above the achievements of other peoples and nations they must be slowly forgotten or attributed to some other racial or ethnic group, otherwise post-modern beliefs about cultural relativity wouldn’t be credible. Sometimes, the marginalization of the Western canon can be quite dramatic. The ongoing controversy over Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a shining example of the excesses of political correctness. This classic work of fiction has been subject to outright bans and expurgation, all because it uses the word nigger some 213 times.[iv]

Not only must the Western canon be replaced, but certain fields of inquiry are declared verboten, all in the name of managing diversity. Since World War II, academia has aggressively marginalized scientific researchers who have refused to adhere to the ideology of political correctness. Anyone who conducts research in a field deemed off-limits by political correctness can expect no financial support from the universities and colleges. For example, if not for the Pioneer Fund, an alternative source of funding for dissidents, the famous Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (MISTRA), one of the most important studies ever conducted on race and intelligence, would never have gotten off the ground.

The limiting of public discourse to politically correct discourse and only politically correct discourse will make society weaker in the long-run:

First, political correctness impoverishes American culture by ensuring art and literature do not violate multicultural orthodoxy, with violators marginalized and treated with oppobrium. A similar, but more extreme situation existed in the Soviet Union, where socialist realism was imposed on artists and writers by government officials. This not only suppressed individual creativity, but perpetuated the wealth and power of the ruling communist party. With few exceptions, the art and literature churned out by Soviet literati were bland, utilitarian, propagandistic and kitschy. The regime of political correctness in America has had a similar effect on contemporary American art and literature, without any of the pretensions to neoclassicism. Clearly then, creativity cannot flourish in an environment where racial hypersensitivity and racial orthodoxy are the norm.

Second, political correctness makes America less stable politically. Dissidents will be forced underground, where they will continue to undermine the stability of the multicultural order as they challenge it from within. If the ideas are credible and reach a large audience—which they will because political correctness is intellectually vacuous—the elite narrative will be threatened. But as a consequence, political repression will increase in severity. If ideas must be suppressed in the name of diversity, their supporters will have to seek other, more clandestine avenues to get their message across. Continued repression will inevitably lead to further unrest.

As JFK once said: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

The Future of the American Empire?

When queried about the new American government, Benjamin Franklin said: “A republic … if you can keep it.” There was uncertainty as to whether the political arrangement agreed upon by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 would continue indefinitely. By the 1790s, there were already signs the new arrangement was beginning to unravel; by the mid-1960s, the spread of universal suffrage had forever consigned the nation’s republican institutions to the trash bin; by the early 2000s, America was a burgeoning imperial colossus, but one that strode the world with feet of clay.

The mass immigration that has played an instrumental role in America’s rise to imperial status has turned American culture into one that worships death. Death, both racial and cultural, permeates American culture and society to the extent it has become ubiquitous; Western borders are porous; state propaganda encourages Third World colonization; miscegenation and antinatalism are everywhere promoted among Whites; and racial integration is considered the normative ideal. By handing over their major financial and administrative centers to non-Whites, Whites are gradually ceding power and control to a growing and increasingly hostile class of imported serfs. In other words, Whites are committing race suicide, while giving non-Whites the means to destroy them when they become powerless minorities in their own racial homelands.

Is America destined to end up “… in fragments, forgotten … in ruins, like old Memphis and Babylon,” as prophesied by Oswald Spengler in Man and Technics?

What happened to Rome during the fourth to fifth centuries is similar to what is going on right now in modern-day America. After the Punic and Macedonian wars, which paved the way for Roman political and military ascendancy in the Mediterranean, the same moral degeneracy affecting modern-day Americans had set in, to rot the empire from within; birth rates fell; cosmopolitanism thrived; high culture declined; foreigners replaced citizens in the main urban centers[v],[vi]; government positions were occupied by foreigners and the defense of the nation was entrusted to foreign mercenaries. In short, the Roman polis had become a cosmopolis, much like modern-day America, everywhere unworkable because people are local, not global in their attachments.

The collapse of Rome is a warning to America—a warning that will, of course, go unheeded. If the ethno-racial differences between Near Easterners and North Africans, Germanic tribesmen and Italian plebeians—small though they were—were enough to cause social and political instability in Roman imperial times, the even more racially divergent Third World colonization will be much, much worse when the time comes for the indigenous populations of the West to finally surrender all political and economic power to the newcomers.

While Spengler did not foresee America’s transformation into a multicultural, globalist empire, he was right that the West’s future would eventually be decided by race. Given the fate of all empires, the passivity of Whites in the face of their own demise, and the vicious avarice of globalist elites, we can be certain race will be America’s undoing.

[i]“Founders Online: From John Adams to James Sullivan, 26 May 1776.” Founders.Archives.Gov, founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-04-02-0091.

[ii]Lott, John R. “How Dramatically Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?” SSRN Electronic Journal, 1999, papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=160530, 10.2139/ssrn.160530.

[iii]“DNA Pioneer Loses Honours over Race Claims.” BBC News, 13 Jan. 2019, www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46856779.

[iv]Page, Benedicte. “New Huckleberry Finn Edition Censors ‘n-Word.’” The Guardian, 5 Jan. 2011, www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jan/05/huckleberry-finn-edition-censors-n-word. ‌

[v]Frank, Tenney. “Race Mixture in the Roman Empire.” The American Historical Review, vol. 21, no. 4, July 1916, p. 689, 10.2307/1835889.

[vi]Antonio, Margaret L., et al. “Ancient Rome: A Genetic Crossroads of Europe and the Mediterranean.” Science, vol. 366, no. 6466, 7 Nov. 2019, pp. 708–714, science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/708.full, 10.1126/science.aay6826.

Kevin MacDonald: “I’m not optimistic about the future of the West”

Reposted from Demokracija (Slovenia)

  • Written by  Andrej Sekulovič
  • Comments:0 Comments

Kevin MacDonaldKevin MacDonald

We spoke with Kevin MacDonald, a professor emeritus of psychology at Long Beach State University of California. His research focuses primarily on the development of evolutionary perspectives on culture, developmental psychology and personality theory.

You have a long career in psychology, as a Professor at California State University, and have authored many different books and academic articles on that subject, focusing mostly on evolutionary psychology, psychology on ethnocentrism and group evolutionary strategies. Could you give us a brief definition of these concepts? 

Evolutionary psychology views the human brain as being shaped by evolution, that is, that over evolutionary time the human mind and underlying neural structures were shaped by natural selection. For example, humans fall in love because there are brain structures that enable this, and it’s adaptive because it motivates men and women to procreate and invest in their children. Genes for this gradually accumulated, and people with more of those genes survived and prospered. 

Please tell us when did you first become active within the “right” ideological specter and which of your conclusions and observations led you to become a renowned author within the circles of the Right? Did your studies of Psychology played a major part in this development? 

I started being active while writing my book The Culture of Critique in the mid-1990s. The Culture of Critique is about how Jewish intellectuals and political activists have shaped Western culture in the twentieth century. I realized that they were shaping culture in ways that promoted their interests but were detrimental to the interests of Europeans. Throughout my writing, I have used my psychological background. For example, one reason that Jewish intellectuals were so influential was because they were able to obtain positions in elite universities. A part of human psychology is to look up to such people and they have more influence as a result. I also write a lot about ethnic networking among Jews—how they promote each other’s work and promote common goals that satisfy Jewish interests.

You have written extensively about the influence of the Jewish-interests groups within the Western societies and about the role of the Jewish intellectuals within the different subversive movements that came to be known as “Cultural Marxism”, your most famous book on the subject being »Culture of Critique«. Could you please explain to us how do these groups operate, in which areas has their influence been the most effective and for what reasons do you choose to describe them as »Culture of Critique«? 

Culture of Critique describes several of the most influential intellectual and political movements of the twentieth century—Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School, the general involvement of Jews with the left, and Jewish activism on behalf of immigration. All of these movements had a central core of people who were strongly identified as Jews and thought of their work as advancing Jewish interests in some way. For example, Freud thought of himself as a warrior in opposition to European culture which he hated because of historical anti-Semitism. His work undermined traditional Western sexual mores and family relationships. His movement attracted many other Jews and together they influenced public opinion because they were able to obtain influential positions in academic and professional organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association, and they were able to spread their messages in the mainstream media—Hollywood, television, and newspapers.

It seems that the breakdown of the Western values and the destruction of the once homogenous European societies that we witness today is a consequence of the ideas and movements that can be traced to the Frankfurt School, whose intellectuals were mostly Jewish, and which was the birthplace of the so called »Cultural Marxism«. Could you give us a brief overview of the ideas and concepts which were the product of the Frankfurt School, and have proven as the most detrimental to our culture and to our European nations? Also would you say that the Frankfurt School represents the beginning of these subversive movements and ideals, or do its roots go further back in time?

The Frankfurt School began in the 1920s as an orthodox Marxist group and continued in that direction until after Hitler came to power after 1933. Marxism did not predict that the working class would vote for a fascist, but many did, and after Hitler came to power, he had high public approval. They reconceptualized the problem as White ethnocentrism because racial identity was central to National Socialism. They reasoned that an anti-Jewish movement could not develop in a country that was not racially homogeneous. As a result, their work claimed that White people who identified as White and attempted to advance the interests of their race had a psychiatric disorder and this was then picked up and promoted very effectively by Jewish activist organizations like the Anti-Defamation League. They did not make an analogous analysis in which identifying as a Jew and advancing Jewish interests were pathological.

Jewish subversion began earlier. Boasian anthropology and psychoanalysis began early in the twentieth century and Jewish activism on the left aimed at toppling gentile power structures dates from the nineteenth century.

The question many people are curious about is, why would certain Jewish-interested groups want the destruction and the breakdown of the Western societies, what is their main motivation and what do they want to achieve through their subversive actions, and influence in culture and in politics?

As noted above, Jews do not feel safe in a homogeneous White society after what happened in Germany in the 1930s. As a result, they have promoted immigration and demographic change so that Whites will be a minority in Western societies and Whites will be less able to organize against Jews. Another major motivation is hatred because of what they see as irrational ant-Semitism throughout history, so that, for example, they oppose Christianity because of the historical role of Christianity in opposition to Jews. They never see their own behavior as contributing to hatred of Jews.

Some people would argue, that the Jews have always been involved in different political movements both on the Left and on the Right, and that while there are quite a few Jews on the Left, it is mostly a coincidence and has nothing to do with them being Jewish, since we can also find Jews among the Conservative Right. What would be your answer to these observations, and what would be your main argument in claiming, that the leftist movements are not just movements which happen to also have a lot of Jewish activists, but that this movements and ideals themselves were created by the Jewish groups to further their own goals and agenda?

I know of no example of a Jew who has advocated for White interests. In general, Jews on the right have been neoconservatives who are mainly motivated by garnering support for Israel within the Republican Party and among conservatives. Neoconservatism, with its roots on the Trotskyist left, has fundamentally acted to combat older forms of conservatism (labeled paleoconservatism) in America and to move the American conservative movement to the left on key issues like immigration (see “Neoconservatism as Jewish Movement“). For example, I cite an American intellectual, Samuel Francis: “There are countless stories of how neoconservatives have succeeded in entering conservative institutions, forcing out or demoting traditional conservatives, and changing the positions and philosophy of such institutions in neoconservative directions.”

My argument that Jews on the left retained strong Jewish identities and a sense of Jewish interests is contained in Chapter 3 of The Culture of Critique and is too long to quote here. However, it begins with the following:

There is little doubt that the vast majority of the Jews who advocated leftist causes beginning in the late nineteenth century were strongly self-identified as Jews and saw no conflict between Judaism and radicalism (Marcus 1983, 280ff; Levin 1977, 65, 1988, I, 4–5; Mishkinsky 1968, 290, 291; Rothman & Lichter 1982, 92–93; Sorin 1985, passim). Indeed, the largest Jewish radical movements in both Russia and Poland were the Jewish Bunds which had an exclusively Jewish membership and a very clear program of pursuing specifically Jewish interests. The proletarianism of the Polish Bund was really part of an attempt to preserve their national identity as Jews (Marcus 1983, 282). Fraternity with the non-Jewish working class was intended to facilitate their specifically Jewish aims, and a similar statement can be made for the Russian Jewish Bund (Liebman 1979, 111ff). Since the Bunds comprised by far the majority of the Jewish radical movement in these areas, the vast majority of Jews participating in radical movements in this period were strongly identified as Jews.

In Chapter 3 I also provide evidence that Jews on the left were motivated to oppose nationalist movements, as in Poland after World War II where many Jews collaborated with the communist government. Jews in pre-revolutionary Russia saw the Czarist government as oppressive and eagerly joined the Soviet government after the Revolution. Jews in America in the 1920s–1940s realized that Jews were an elite in the USSR and strongly advocated for pro-USSR causes in the U.S. There are many more examples of this.

While »Culture of Critique« is probably your most famous book on this subject, it is just a third book of a trilogy, the other two books being » A People That Shall Dwell Alone« and »Separation and its Discontents«. In these books you also write about Judaism and about the phenomenon of Antisemitism. Could you tell us how would you say Judaism differs from Islam and Christianity? And regarding the topic of Antisemitism, do you believe Jewish groups are using it today to further their own agenda? 

As discussed in A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Judaism developed as a very explicit diaspora strategy—they saw themselves as living as a minority group within larger societies. They never sought to be a universal religion. Their writings underscore that they saw themselves as in conflict with the wider society and as having different interests from other groups in the society. For example, a common theme of historical anti-Semitism was that Jews made alliances with kings and other aristocrats and would engage in oppressive business practices that would enrich their aristocratic patrons and themselves at the expense of other sectors of the population.

Jewish groups are constantly exaggerating anti-Semitism as a way to raise money but also to provide reasons for enacting controls on free speech. In the United States it is now basically off-limits to criticize Israel: any criticism of Israel is regarded as anti-Semitism. Another example, according to a recent article in the mainstream media, Jews in the television industry have been producing very Jewish-themed shows emphasizing the Holocaust and other threats to Jewish interests because of a supposed huge increase in anti-Semitism. “There’s been a huge uptick in anti-Semitic hate crimes in the U.S. over the past five years, according to the FBI, in an era when only 45% of U.S adults know that six million Jews died in the Holocaust, according to a Pew Research Center survey published in January.«

How would you assess the work of President Trump since he entered the office?

I was very supportive of Trump during the 2016 election. His record since is mixed. He is certainly doing the bidding of is pro-Israel donors like Sheldon Adelson and the Republican Jewish Coalition despite his campaign pledges for an America-First foreign policy. He has not been as good as he promised on immigration. He is building the wall with Mexico but has also approved huge numbers of worker visas that displace American workers, and he has not decreased the huge numbers of legal immigrants that will soon make Whites a minority in the U.S., nor has he ended birthright citizenship according to which anyone born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen, leading to illegal aliens establishing families and obtaining welfare benefits, etc.

What are your predictions for the U.S. presidential elections this year? And what are your predictions regarding the future of U.S.A. and the rest of the Western world?

It’s too soon to tell what will happen this year much less the long-term future of the West. Trump will have a good chance against Joe Biden, who is senile and not a candidate that inspires enthusiasm. However, the non-White vote keeps increasing and this will soon make it impossible for any Republican to win. Right now Trump is being blamed for a poor response to the coronavirus and that may be an effective talking point for Biden, especially given what the virus panic has done to the economy. The strength of the economy had been Trump’s major asset.

I am not optimistic on the future of the West. We are importing non-White majorities that will have no interest in maintaining our culture, our institutions, or our traditional freedoms. Unless something drastic changes, the West as we know it will be destroyed.

You are also the Chief Editor of the website »Occidental Observer«, can you tell us a bit about this project?

The Occidental Observer has articles that touch on White identity and interests. Given my writing, we have a lot of discussion of Jewish issues.

We are all aware of the censorship which has been increasing in the last years, regarding ideas that are deemed »politically incorrect«. Did you ever faced any kind of censorship, and did your activities and writings ever affected your professional career as a University Professor? Did you faced any criticism from you colleagues etc.?

Yes, there was a movement to get my university to fire me—the relevant documents are on my website. A left-wing organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), conducted a campaign against me.  A representative of the SPLC came to my university from November 12–15 2006 to interview faculty and administrators about me. During the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 academic years there was also a great deal of discussion and debate about my work and associations on faculty email lists. Eventually several departments issued statements dissociating themselves from my work and, in some cases, condemning my work. I was an active participant in these debates, In April, 2008, there was a large meeting conducted by the SPLC representative to denounce me. A speaker from the Anti-Defamation League also participated in this meeting.

Can you tell us for the end a bit about you latest book, titled »Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, and let us know what are your plans for the future? 

Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition argues that ethnic influences are important for understanding the West. The prehistoric invasion of the Indo-Europeans had a transformative influence on Western Europe, inaugurating a prolonged period of what is labeled “aristocratic individualism” resulting form variants of Indo-European genetic and cultural influence. However, beginning in the seventeenth century and gradually becoming dominant was a new culture labeled “egalitarian individualism” which was influenced by preexisting egalitarian tendencies of northwest Europeans. Egalitarian individualism ushered in the modern world but may well carry the seeds of its own destruction. I have a chapter on psychological mechanisms that have resulted in so many Westerners accepting the current regime of displacing White populations in favor of massive non-White immigration. This brings in much discussion of evolutionary psychology. For example, I present data that White people are more empathic towards others because we are less ethnocentric than other peoples. This tendency toward empathy has been manipulated by the media to make Westerners empathic to suffering Africans and Asians and make them willing to make these people into citizens. There are also some hopeful signs—e.g., because of all the anti-White hatred we are seeing in the media, more White people are identifying as White and seeing that they have interests as Whites in not becoming a minority. But I conclude the book by suggesting that there may be a civil war brewing in the United States.

The new Red Guards

Just finished Wild Swans, over 700 pages of densely-packed print but a real page-turner nonetheless. It traces the experiences of a Chinese family spanning three generations up to the late nineties. The author’s description of life during Mao’s Cultural Revolution was particularly harrowing. And instructive because of the similarities between what happened then under the Red Guards and is happening now under the Woke Generation.

Guilt was no longer determined by the rule of law, the presumption of innocence (such as it was) abandoned. Replaced by mob denunciation arising from a perceived lack of ideological purity, or something you said a long time ago, or somebody now out of favour in whose company you were once seen. Just like today in the West ritual denunciation was followed by grovelling confessions – which were never enough. In fact as we see with today’s “liberals” such grovelling – for some reason – seems only to elicit even greater fury, fuelling demands for re-education but with no guarantee of rehabilitation. Humiliation was a powerful weapon, breaking the spirit of even the most resilient. And the more truthful and accurate the defence the more frenzied became the torment, reminding us of Orwell’s “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it”.

Mao’s stated objective was to destroy The Four Olds:  Old Customs, Old Culture, Old Habits, and Old Ideas.  Add in the systematic undermining of the family unit, religion and personal loyalty, the lack of privacy and an absolute adherence to the Party Line and his programme takes on chilling similarities to what we see now in our own countries. And worse is headed our way.  Unless meaningful opposition arises. [To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.” – Dr George Brock Chisholm, who served as the first Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) from 1948 to 1953]

I’ll leave you with a final thought: Mao’s main instrument of tyranny was not the police, the army or the intelligence services. He controlled the most powerful enforcer of all: The people themselves. The Cultural Revolution turned the Chinese people into the enforcers of their own repression. Neighbour ratted-out neighbour, even family members ratted one another out. Do I hear you say something about pandemic lock-down? The 17th Century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes saw even back then that absolute power come less from an imposition from above and more through people willingly giving up their own freedom in the face of some real or imagined threat.
Reposted from The Irish Savant.

Meditations on Hate

“Nature seems made up of antipathies: without something to hate, we should lose the very spring of thought and action. … Hatred alone is immortal.”
William Hazlitt, 1826

No human feeling has been more maligned, slandered, abused, and misappropriated in contemporary culture than the humble and dignified hatred. Wars have been declared against it. Legislation seeks everywhere to strangle it. It has been presented as the source of all evils, and as the great enemy of our time. This primordial emotion is the red-headed stepchild of our contemporary psychological spectrum and the exile of our political language, ever-present but covered up out of embarrassment, shame, or subterfuge. Entire categories of crime and speech have been segregated under the rubric of Hate, and set aside for especially harsh punishment. “Hate facts” are provable realities allegedly tainted with hate, and thus represent aspects of material existence deemed so awful they are denied despite their evident truth.

Hate, it would seem, just can’t get a break. Few are willing to speak on its behalf, even among those classed primarily as “haters.” The latter are apt to protest to deaf ears that they don’t hate anyone but merely love their own kind. All of this denial and disavowal occurs despite the fact hate is as crucial to human existence, if not more so, as love. It is omnipresent. Without hate, you have no history and no literature, no passion and no capacity for action. The plot of the Iliad essentially revolves around the wait for Achilles to reach an optimal state of hatred that then morphs into martial ecstasy and final victory. Imagine Hamlet merely possessing a mediocre dislike of his uncle Claudius. Without Ahab’s detestation of the whale there is no Moby Dick. Even if it were true that love makes the world go round, it would appear that hate greases the axle. It’s time for an exploration from a justified hater.

The Genealogy of Postmodern Morals

The origin of the contemporary war on hate is worthy of some consideration. Religion, contra Nietzsche, doesn’t offer a complete explanation. Take the Bible, for instance, which for the most part offers no injunction against enmity, intense dislike, or revenge except in cases of silent resentment in fraternal, co-ethnic, or communal relationships (Lev. 19:17, 1 John 3:15). The Hebrew god is said to be a hater of lying (Ps. 119:163) and the Psalmist professes to hate his enemies (Ps.139:22) with a “perfect hatred.” Ecclesiastes (Ecc. 3:8) mentions, without judgment or further commentary, that there is “a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.” The entire history of the Jewish people can be read as involving a quite shameless hatred for the rest of humanity. The only exception in the Bible is located within the “love thy enemy” section of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:44) which, given that it was most probably written while the persecutions under Nero were ongoing, was likely inserted to both promote non-violent resistance and represent a further denial that Christians were a danger to Roman authority (alongside “render under Caesar” etc., also in Matthew). It sits uneasily with much of the rest of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, which makes Nietzsche’s critique of the entirety of these religions as exemplifying unique slave moralities, based almost entirely on amplifications of the concepts of loving one’s enemy and “turning the other cheek,” seem rather tendentious.[1]

Opposition to hatred, and being kind to one’s enemies, can as easily be found among the ancient Stoics and the Buddhists. For Nietzsche, although he focused overwhelmingly on Judaism and Christianity, these were all positions of life-denial, weakness, and dishonesty. Certainly these responses were weaker than simply hating your enemy. For the Stoics, the goal was individual happiness, and resentment and intense dislike were viewed simply as burdensome barriers to that goal — better to be rid of the enemy, yes, but also to be rid of negative feelings for them. For the Buddhists, the soft, supple branch that bends with the fall of heavy snow is more likely to survive winter than the brittle branch that resists and then snaps under increasing weight. Giving way, if necessary, to enemies, was therefore viewed as a form of tactical strength and a means to survival and happiness.

These positions are ultimately weak and evasive in my opinion, because they reject the principles of overcoming obstacles and engaging in direct competition with opponents. Hatred is only a psychological burden when it can’t be fulfilled, thus involving not only hate of the other for their provocation, but hate of the self for the inability to obtain resolution. The mental burden of hatred is found predominantly in the latter, and many flee from it into perverse and ultimately insincere forms of forgiveness. When they “forgive their enemies” they are rather forgiving themselves for not overcoming their enemies.[2] The Stoic and Buddhist approaches are therefore weak not simply because of their superficial rejection of hatred, but because their rejections are themselves evidence of intrinsic weakness in the rejector. If history tells us only one thing, however, it is that no man, and no religion, is immune to the arising of hate, and few escape it altogether. Differences in outward expression, in Christianity, Buddhism, Stoicism, or Judaism thereafter are mere points of tactics.

Unlike Nietzsche, I don’t think specific answers for our current situation can be found so clearly in religion, or even in the distant past. Hate, and the flight from hate among the weak and cowardly, have been with us from the beginning of time, even if it is worsening in the present age. Contemporary hypocrisy and widespread dishonesty in relation to hatred is primarily a result of decadence in modernity, and is related in no small part to duplicitous Jewish activism on behalf of the emotional anaesthetic known widely now as “tolerance.” What is the genealogy of postmodern morals? In ‘The Genius of the Crowd,” Charles Bukowski wrote that “the best at hate are those who preach love,” which couldn’t be more appropriately applied to those now insisting that every country on earth should learn to love their Jews. We live in an age where the problem isn’t that “hate is on the march” but that it marches under innumerable masks, appearing here as “love” and there as “tolerance.” The “war on hate” that we witness today isn’t a war on hate at all, but a hypocritical war on the White capacity to feel and express hate. It should be starkly obvious that every other race on earth is free to hold all the resentments, bitterness, aggression, and calculated coldness it wants, but these qualities are deemed too dangerous, too volatile in Whites. Better that Whites be rendered emotional eunuchs; timid cattle put out to graze in pastures of fast food and mind-blunting entertainment. Stoicism, Buddhism, and interfaith “tolerance” branches of Christianity are enjoying a widespread boom across the West, fueled by a culture that wants Whites to be “the branch that bends.” And rest assured it is only in the West that the “war on hate” is taking place. There is no universal campaign for universal brotherhood and friendship outside ubiquitous Western multicultural propaganda. The campaign against hate, including its legal manifestations, is inseparable from multiculturalism, mass immigration, global capitalism, and the demographic decline of Whites.

War on Hate, War on Whites

It has become an axiom of Western culture that “being strongly against” anything is morally unsound or quasi-fascistic. Everywhere, and in all sections of the political spectrum, groups struggle to avoid being seen as “against” something, lest they be accused of hating what they oppose. Better to be “pro-life” than “anti-abortion,” and better to be “pro-choice” than “anti-foetus”! Better to be “for strong borders” than to be “against immigration.” Better to say you “support the Palestinians” rather than bluntly declare yourself an “anti-Zionist.” Better to say you support the privacy of women than let it be known you despise the notion of gender-bending miscreants entering into bathrooms alongside your wives and daughters. Better to say you are “pro religious freedom” than assert your hatred of the notion that two men can marry each other. Every sinew is strained to couch one’s feelings in positive terminology, so that you might be seen as a “positive” person with “positive” intentions. Even in our own movement I’ve noticed slices of semi-sincere rhetoric where we increasingly preface our assertions of identity and interests with claims that we support the identity and interests of all peoples (I don’t), even the Zionism of the Jews (I don’t)! The rot, my friends, is universal. Everywhere in the West, being “anti” anything is regarded as highly suspect, unless you are “anti-fascist” or “anti-racist,” in which case you are merely against the idea that Whites have the audacity to be against something.

The war on hate is founded on a ridiculous premise — that everything in modern culture is perfectly agreeable and that there are no logical or moral grounds for strongly opposing anything or anyone in our midst. What is hatred? A feeling of intense dislike. Contemporary political and social mores would have you believe that any White man or woman who looked about them and was aroused to a state of intense dislike must be some kind of monster. Merely sharing your feelings of intense dislike, now termed “inciting hatred,” has been deemed criminal conduct in scores of Western countries. Criminal conduct! This despite the fact there has never been a point in our history more deserving of the deepest loathing, the most scathing contempt, and the most vicious hatred. This seething morass of ethnic encroachment, miscegenation, perversion, ignorance, degeneration, degradation, and humiliation is worthy of every last drop of spite and abhorrence that can feasibly be poured upon it. I hate it all, and if you have any genuine natural instincts left, and if you haven’t been conditioned into a perpetual state of consumerist ennui, you will hate it too.

I take particular pleasure in considering the appellation “Hope not Hate,” attached to a UK “anti-fascist” group dedicated to being against the idea that White people are against anything. To be sure, they occasionally pepper their activities with token gestures on Islamic extremism, but really they should be called “Hope not [White] Hate.” I find it especially interesting that they don’t call themselves “Love not Hate,” which would surely be the logical way of presenting an alternative to hate.

And yet it makes sense that they didn’t choose “love” for two reasons. In the first instance, anyone who opposes hate must intrinsically obstruct love. These opposites exist on the same emotional spectrum, and if you distance from one you enter into a type of emotional tunnel vision in which you lose sight of the other. If anyone tells you earnestly that they don’t hate anyone, you can be sure you’re either talking to a liar or a passionless member of the emotionally castrated. Secondly, those behind this group were probably confronted with the reality that what they have designated “hate” — nativism and nationalism — can’t rationally be opposed with “love.” What were activists and supporters supposed to love? Hordes of anonymous third world migrants? Clearly too large an ask, they settled instead on “hope.” What is hope? Hope for what? Hope is optimism at its most irrational extreme. Hope is when you’re chased to the edge of a cliff by a pack of rabid dogs, when you look down at foaming waves, and “hope” that when you jump, you’ll miss the rocks and survive. Hope is what you feel when all options, and all rational grounds for optimism, are exhausted. Truly there can be no better name for an organization dedicated to the flooding of White countries with mass migration. I congratulate the group’s leaders on their decision.

It is a special irony, of course, that the priests of the war on hate are the Jews who, for more than a century now, have posed themselves as angelic warriors against bigotry and hatred. This from a people known since the days of Caesar as world-haters possessing the most extraordinary instinct for misanthropy. And here, perhaps is their greatest strength — that they learned to preach anti-hatred while retaining, protecting, and refining their own hatreds. For what does the Jew possess more intense dislike than the homogeneous White nation? Fingernails running down a chalkboard — this is the traditional White nation to the Jews.

The Jewish campaign against hate is a new attempt at a revolution in values. Those European imbeciles who nibble at this bait, convinced that they are part of some moral crusade for universal brotherhood, are throwing themselves into a campaign supporting Jewish hate. Isn’t it obvious that Europeans who adopt the new values aren’t “against hate” but merely sublimate their instincts and agree to hate themselves? What are speech laws, waves of migrants, and the imposition of new values by outsiders if not a hateful violation of sovereignty and the infliction of a systematic cruelty? Imagine the audacity of introducing these measures under the banner of “fighting hate”! All of these things, to the extent that they restrict and punish the natural feelings of the European, bring obvious pleasure and satisfaction to Jews. It is a matter of great joy to Jews that Whites should sign up by the thousands to purge their own ranks of all capacity for opposition. By preaching “a world without hate,” Jews promote a world of docile and dwindling Whites. And they are considerably advanced in this cause.

What is hate? A feeling of intense dislike, but also something else. Coming to the realiation that one intensely dislikes something is the prelude to action against it. I need to be clear on my meaning here. Contemporary propaganda saturation would have you believe that hate “causes” violence and terrorism. This is a nonsense. Consult the work of any serious terrorism expert and you won’t find “hate” anywhere listed as a serious explanation for any act of terrorism at any point in history. Hate is primarily an understanding, and then a state of mind. One can find terrorism motivated in small part by hate, but also by love, fear, confusion, desperation, tactical consideration, religious enthusiasm, personal anguish, psychopathy, peer pressure, mental illness, drug addiction, greed and even a combination of all of these things. When I say that hate is primarily an understanding I mean that it shapes trajectories of behaviour and conditions responses. Hate is not spontaneously self-creating. It doesn’t arise in a given man simply because that man is “bad.” Hate arises in response to stimuli, some kind of provocation. Hate always has a cause and an object. And the person at peace in their hatred is someone willing to believe that he can ultimately overcome and defeat what he hates.

The Longest Hatred

Jews have described anti-Semitism as the “longest hatred.” I disagree. It is clear to any educated onlooker that Semitism itself, insofar as Semitism is defined as the behavioural expression of the Jewish hatred of mankind, represents the oldest hatred in recorded history. The interesting point here is that all Jewish examinations of what they perceive to be the “longest hatred” are conspicuous in their avoidance of the issue of cause and object. Hatred of the Jews is, for Jews, entirely spontaneous and self-creating. Hatred, a human emotion, is often quarantined from reasonable human consideration and represented in Jewish understanding as something not-quite-human — a virus, a theological mutation, or a psychological malfunction. Europeans in Jewish writings are quintessential haters insofar as this involves Europeans giving themselves over to something entirely irrational and inexplicable. Unwilling to examine their own role as cause and object, or to look at their own hatreds in the cold light of day, Jews promote the idea that hate itself, or at least hate among Europeans, is always devoid of cause and object. The White man’s hate is always spontaneous, always irrational, always self-creating, always inexplicable. Ultimately, as we have seen, hate in the European is “criminal.”

If Semitism is, as I have argued, the true “longest hatred,” then what is its cause and object? Causes here are both internal and external to Jews. Judaism, the precise origins of which will remain forever unknown and unknowable, commands a strict separation from other humans and the formation of an ethnic caste above all others. It asserts an ultimate, cosmic superiority, and permits the infliction of a lesser ethics upon presumed inferiors. Jewish hate has arisen from time immemorial in the simple fact that other humans (collectively lumped together simply as goyim) refuse to accept this state of affairs, and that they fail to indulge Judaism’s dominance fantasy. From the beginning of Judaism until the present day, Jews have encountered populations who refuse to see Jews as their superiors. These non-Jewish populations have consistently refused to be subjected to lesser treatment, and they have hated the Jews for attempting to impose it upon them. Jews have responded to this reactionary hatred with a further hatred of their own — a dishonest hatred that hides even from itself and postures as a morose remembering of past injustices. The cycle continues endlessly, with Jewish hatred thus internally and perpetually powered via the momentum of the past.

The lachrymose history of the Jews is in fact the story of frustrated attempts at dominance, and although it presents as a tale of woe, it is in fact a hit-list for revenge. Adam and Gedaliah Afterman have written of the Medieval period as a time in which Jews cultivated a powerful theology/ideology of revenge for perceived wrongs perpetrated by host populations. One Medieval Ashkenazi tale, for example, portrays God as “listing on his garment” the names of all Jewish victims of Gentiles over the course of time so that in the future the deity would have a record of those to be avenged.[3] Isn’t it clear that this tale is a mere externalizing of deeper instincts? Isn’t Jewish culture and historiography the  real “garment” upon which Jews name their “victims,” thereby paving the way for a future vengeance executed not by a deity but by the true object of Jewish worship — the Jews themselves? Every act of Jewish hate is therefore ultimately dishonest, being predicated on false conceptions of vengeance (since the antagonistic Jews were never truly wronged) and therefore incapable of being fulfilled. Jewish hate does not act on immediate causes and objects, but on causes and objects from all nations and from all time periods including the distant past and future. The contemporary infliction of mass migration and cultural degradation on the United States is therefore part of a scheme of vengeance that has its roots in ancient Rome, and in medieval Toledo, and in 1920s Romania, etc. In this kaleidoscopic form of self-denial, Jews seek to fundamentally change your nation not because they “hate” you, and certainly not because they love you, but because they know only too well the dangers of the past. In the midst of such reasoning, their obvious hatred is obscured even to many of their own number.

By contrast, the hatred of the Europeans for the Jews, being honest to itself, has always been capable of fulfilment. European hate for the Jews has been predicated much less on the past than on immediate cause and object, and European resistance to attempts at Jewish dominance has for the most part been satisfied with curtailments of certain monopolies. We have no equivalent of the lachrymose history, and are notable for our lack of any kind of “garment” on which we’ve listed the victims of Jewish machinations. Europeans have never sublimated their hatred for outsiders, or disguised these hatreds to themselves. European hatred doesn’t hide from itself, or take on the aspect of mere resentment. It has always been concerned with action and results. Expulsions, the most radical answer to provocative Jewish causes and objects, were in most cases short-lived, illustrating the lack of serious grudges among Europeans and a willingness to renew the contexts for relations. This alleged “longest hatred” among the Europeans therefore has the remarkable quality of large gaps, resets, reversals, and numerous chances at decent relationships. As a people, we have always lived in the present and, but for the fact that this has been taken advantage of, this forgetfulness has, as Nietzsche observed, been a source of robust health, action, joy, and pride. The only error of the historical Europeans was to assume that the slate had also been wiped clean on the Jewish side, whereas in fact the Judaic garment of vengeance was growing ever-longer.


The current revolution in values is designed to make Whites the “branch that bends.” In giving up hate, Europeans everywhere will have resigned themselves to non-resistance and to a psychological state in which successful opposition to the negative forces of contemporary life becomes impossible. Honest hate among the strong is healthy, good, and necessary. It is especially necessary in an environment in which opponents of all kinds are engaged in mass duplicity, disguising their own selfish interests as “love,” their own grudges as “tolerance,” and their own hatred as “kindness.” Surrounded by detestable things lingering under dishonesty, we must embrace a “perfect hatred,” and be at peace in it, in the certain knowledge that, while the weak fall by the way side, we will carry it to its completion.

[1] I tend to concur with Roger Scruton’s assessment of Nietzsche’s fixation here that it was both “obsessive, if not tedious.” See Scruton, A Short History of Modern Philosophy (1995).

[2] This kind of thinking has expanded rapidly in modernity because justice has become an increasingly watered down and impersonal affair in which individual access to adequate retribution is frustrated.

[3] A. Afterman & G. Afterman, “Meir Kahane and Contemporary Jewish Theology of Revenge,” Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 98, No. 2, (2015), 192-217, (197).