Featured Articles

Patriots, Identitarians, Nationalists and Sovereignists: They must all be positive

What follows is the text of my speech given at the Generation Identity conference in London, UK, July 27, 2019.

Words such as “sovereignty” and “identity,” both belonging to the family of patriotism, have become trendy words among European nationalists of different stripes. They are even used as synonyms along with their new derivatives “sovereignists” and “identitarians” respectively. Many of these verbal derivatives did not even exist in the English language until recently. In the German language these words, which are of Latin origin, have also come into use recently—words such as der Patriot, der Identitäre and der Souveränist, although they often sound odd and un-German to traditional German ears. These replacement words for the old word “nationalist” owe their birth to two political and historical factors: 1) The German language, shortly after World War II, was subjected to a profound cleansing process carried out by the occupying Allied forces and their re-educational apparatchiks, the latter mostly recruited among academics of the newly re-established, Jewish-dominated Marxist Frankfurt school. Their task was to impose on the German people a new political vocabulary, a new way of communication — and a new identity. 2) The old German words associated with the notion of patriotism such as the German adjective “völkisch” or the compound noun “Volksgenosse,” which stands for a fellow patriot, or the unique German word “artfremd,” which means an alien of different biological stock, or the word “gleichrassig,” meaning someone of the same racial stock, vanished overnight in 1945. Ever since they have become crimethink words banned from public discourse. Henceforth many modern German and other European nationalists, burdened by the stigma of the National-Socialist past, prefer to use imported words such as “patriots” or “identitarians” instead, well aware that these new words can provide them with a modicum of political legitimacy in the mainstream media.

The new word “identitiarian” sounds quite romantic and is often used by patriots today all over Europe and America although it is not specific enough. Our identity cannot be unitary; it can have multiple facets. How should we define our identity? In singular or in plural? For example, in my case, which identity comes first and which one comes second? Am I first a Croat or an American? Or a hyphenated Croat-American? Or a European-White-American? On the professional level I can also display triple or quadruple identities; I can first define myself as a writer, as a professor, a translator, or as a political activist. On the religious level, my identity may first be Catholic or agnostic. And finally, there is also my racial identity, which is being dismissed as a social construct today by the majority of System-friendly scholars and the mainstream media. There are, fortunately, a few prominent scholars today who consider race the first marker of man’s identity. Even a half-blind man when stepping out of this London hotel can notice swarms of individuals of different races milling around.

So which identity should I pick first in my case? Should it be based on my racial, national, political, religious, sexual, or professional preferences? Read more

The Legacy of the Left, Part II

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Despite the abject accounts of Marxist “progressive” historians, the catastrophic events associated with the rise of the left are clear beyond all doubts—from the unprecedented savagery of Robespierre’s Reign of Terror to the fanaticism and obscene murderousness of the Communist regime under Lenin and Stalin, to Khmer Rouge Cambodia and Red China. Courtois estimates the global total of Communism’s innocent victims at between 85 and 100 million in the twentieth century. During the two years of the Great Purge alone, the NKVD [Secret Police the Soviet Union] executed 850,000 victims under the notorious Section 58 of their Communist penal code. But as Robespierre famously said, “You can’t make an omelette without cracking a few eggs.” Stalin said the same thing.

Santayana’s quote at the top of this article is totally relevant to today’s politics where Democrats are debating amongst themselves for the title “Champion of the Left.” In a funny, but not-so-funny PragerU video, people on the streets of New York City were asked whether or not a statement read by PragerU Host Ami Horowitz stemmed from the “Communist Manifesto” or the Democratic Party’s platform.

In the latest media offering to the American people, Donald Trump has been cast to play the roles originally played by King Louis XVI and Czar Nicholas II. Unfortunately for the studio, the ratings for their TV sitcom “The Mueller Show Trial” have fallen off as of late. But for the first two years of the Trump presidency the gullible general public tuned in for every twist and turn in the longest running, most boring sitcom ever aired on TV. But the slightest possibility of seeing Trump guillotined (okay, carted off to prison) kept them glued to their favorite device.

Make no mistake about it. The Mueller investigation was a show trial in the long tradition of the left. Stalin would have likely regarded it as a bit beneath his standards because Trump wasn’t guillotined, but it had a lot of the same ingredients. As Mark Levin noted, “There was no reply by the president that was permitted, no contrary witnesses, no contrary documents, no contrary evidence, no cross-examinations, no challenges of any type.”

Despite the fact that Mueller’s investigation into the alleged Trump-Russian collusion dominated CNN (and MSM in general) headlines since before Trump’s election, there was not a mention of Mueller by the CNN hosts of the Democratic debates in Detroit. After all that reporting they simply pretended nothing had happened. Of course, in a very real sense nothing did. None of the charges made against Trump or his associates that were related to any sort of collusion panned out. No evidence of collusion has ever been uncovered. Even the initial premise for the investigation and certainly its long, tired run were dubious at best. After two years of their “investigative journalism”, we now learn that Mueller himself was merely a puppet of a political witchhunt controlled by Anti-Trump Democrats, notably Andrew Weissman. MSM journalists never bothered to uncover or disclose the basic fact that the Mueller investigation was dominated by some very partisan Democrats.

And no one seemed to notice that the obscure Logan Act, never enforced in its 218 years of existence, became the pretext “to entangle the new administration in a criminal investigation as soon as it walked in the door of the White House.” Read more

The Legacy of the Left: Then and Now, Part 1

The execution of Robespierre

In “The Tragedy and Triumph of Lyndon Johnson” Joseph Califano describes LBJ’s view of the left wing of his own party. “A liberal is intolerant of other views. He wants to control your thoughts and actions,” Johnson declared. Califano then describes the president moving forward in his chair to deliver his punch line:

You know the difference between cannibals and liberals?
Cannibals eat only their enemies.”

Using LBJ’s insightful quip as a starting point I set out to explore the history of leftist politics from the Reign of Terror to the Stalin’s Great Purge in Part I and compare it with the ‘Resistance’ we see from today’s angry and intolerant leftists in Part II.

Part I: Highlights of the Old Left

Leftwing French radicals led by lawyers like Danton, Robespierre and others laid a foundation for leftist thought and action that has resurfaced throughout history. Here I provide a synopsis of the two revolutions that have most shaped modern leftist thought in the West: France in the late 18th century and Russia in the early to mid-20th century.

After the fall of the Bastille and the arrest of the King, the French insurrectionists were facing the decision of what to do next, specifically what to do with Louis XVI. Robespierre argued that the dethroned king could function only as a threat to liberty and national peace and that the members of the Assembly were compelled to execute the king as part of their duty to protect the public safety, rather than administer justice by trying the King according to the law in a fair and impartial manner:

The critical question concerning you must be decided by these words alone: Louis was dethroned by his crimes; Louis denounced the French people as rebels; he appealed to chains, to the armies of tyrants who are his brothers; the victory of the people established that Louis alone was a rebel; Louis cannot, therefore, be judged; he already is judged. He is condemned, or the republic cannot be absolved. To propose to have a trial of Louis XVI, in whatever manner one may, is to retrogress to royal despotism and constitutionality; it is a counter-revolutionary idea because it places the revolution itself in litigation. [138]

In essence Robespierre argued that the King must die so that the nation may live and his view carried the day.[140] Without trial Louis XVI was voted guilty of conspiracy and attacks upon public safety by the Convention and sentenced to death by guillotine.

During the insurrection Robespierre had scrawled a note in his memorandum-book:

What we need is a single will (il faut une volonté une). It must be either republican or royalist. If it is to be republican, we must have republican ministers, republican newspapers, republican deputies, a republican government. The internal dangers come from the middle classes; in order to defeat the middle classes we must rally the people. … The people must ally itself with the Convention, and the Convention must make use of the people.[163][164]

Robespierre’s brief statement about the need for a single will provides insight into the dynamics of his brief tenure at the helm of the Reign of Terror. He did not just debate with fellow revolutionaries and let a majority of diverse voices rule. Instead, he carefully hunted down anyone who disagreed with him and plotted to have them guillotined. Read more

Trump’s ‘Thatcher Effect’: Obstacle to White Nationalism?

“While anti-fascists had eroded the organisational capacity of the National Front in the late 1970s, Margaret Thatcher had stolen their ideological clothing. As prime minister, she had successfully held together a coalition of support with her blend of jingoism and watered-down Powellism.
Daniel Trilling, Bloody Nasty People: The Rise of Britain’s Far Right (2012)

A rising White Nationalist movement that is somehow stunted in what should be its greatest moment of opportunity. A politically incorrect candidate for office, seemingly unafraid to discuss immigration, and who uses controversial rhetoric touching on race to attract mass support and move victoriously into government. An anti-fascist and left-liberal coalition driven to apoplexy by the repeated intrusion of “racist” arguments and ideas into the national discourse. And a mass influx of coloured migration that somehow continues unabated, perhaps even getting worse. This would be a useful and accurate summary of Donald Trump’s first term in office, which continues to frustrate and confuse those looking for tangible results. As discussions continue on Trump’s putative utility for the anti-immigration cause and on the alternative possibilities of “accelerationism” under a radical left-wing Democrat government, the following essay attempts to offer some advice and lessons from history — a relatively recent history, and one in which all of the important aspects of the Trump phenomenon listed above can be clearly seen. As will be demonstrated from the example of Margaret Thatcher and Britain’s National Front, it is argued here that Trump is an obstacle, and not the way, to the advancement of the Dissident Right.

A Movement on the Rise

The years 2014–16 may in some sense be regarded as a watershed in the recent history of Dissident Right ideas in the United States, and yet they were truly dwarfed by the progress of the Dissident Right in 1970s Britain. Founded in 1967 from a union of the British National Party and the League of Empire Loyalists (and later, the Greater Britain Movement), the National Front was a vehicle for racial thinking and anti-immigration viewpoints at a time when Britain was being swamped by successive floods of coloured migrants from former British colonies. Much like today’s political context, there was a relative neglect of immigration and race-related issues by the mainstream political parties. In yet another important similarity, British industry was beginning to undergo dramatic changes, with the emergence of increasingly troubled and alienated classes of Whites forced to live alongside growing Black and Pakistani enclaves. Simmering inter-racial tensions were being managed, barely, via the gagging of Whites under an increasing number of “race relations” laws, devised almost exclusively by a body of Jewish lawyers. The National Front was able to exploit this context and force its way into the political arena, taking voters from both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party throughout the 1970s.[1] During the period 1972 to 1974, the Front boasted an active and paying membership somewhere between 14,000 and 20,000, and achieved advancement during local elections in 1973, 1976, and 1977. Its electoral influence has been described by scholars as “significant,”[2] and its cultural impact was such that every voter in Britain knew exactly what the movement was, as well as the basic thrust of its ideological trajectory. It was a movement on the rise, and confidence was high. Read more

A Government of Grovelling Goys: Boris Johnson, Friends of Israel and the Second Coming of Cummings

Why aren’t the British Left celebrating? The “one-man melting-pot” Boris Johnson has become the new prime minister. He has Turkish, Jewish, French and English ancestry. Johnson has appointed two politicians of colour to the most important posts in his cabinet: the Pakistani Muslim Sajid Javid is now chancellor and the Indian Hindu Priti Patel is now home secretary. And there are other politicians of colour in other posts, making this cabinet the most “ethnically diverse” in British history.

Boris Johnson gets his priorities right

However, the Left aren’t celebrating. Instead, they’re once again condemning Johnson and his party for racism. They’ve got the so-called Conservatives exactly where they want them: endlessly and fruitlessly chasing the approval of non-Whites. Although the Tories are, like the Republicans in America, completely dependent on White votes to win elections, they never try to advance the interests of Whites or to defend Whites against incessant accusations of racism, bigotry and selfishness. Instead, they embrace the profoundly unconservative and deeply stupid concept of the “proposition nation.” According to the Tories and the Republicans, anyone on Earth can become British or American if they embrace the right “values” and believe in the right ideas.

Serving the Tribe

Meanwhile, the Left harness the primal and potent forces of tribalism as they pursue the only thing that really matters to them: power. But tribalism is actually on plain display in the new Johnson government too. Or rather, it’s Tribalism, with a capital “T.” Johnson, Javid, Patel and Company are all dedicated servants of the world’s oldest, most selfish and most successful tribe: the Jews. However, no mainstream commentator will dare to label this a kosher cabinet. Nevertheless, that is exactly what it is. The dominant lobby-group Conservative Friends of Israel has praised Boris Johnson for his “long history of standing shoulder to shoulder with Israel and the Jewish community.” That’s rather like a puppeteer praising his own puppet for its devotion to duty. As I’ve pointed out in articles like “A Shameless Shabbos-Shiksa” and “How to Win Power and Riches by Betraying Your Own,” Boris Johnson, Sajid Javid and Priti Patel are expert practitioners of the goy-grovel, having endlessly ladled sycophancy on Britain’s tiny but very rich and powerful Jewish minority, and worked non-stop to advance Israeli and Jewish interests.

The Goy-Grovel: Sajid Javid, Priti Patel and Boris Johnson perform at Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI)

Read more

A Rejoinder on White Genocide — and its Cure

Of late, much has been made in the alt-right press of the idea of “White genocide” as an existential threat posed by mainstream society, aimed at the obliteration of Whites in their formerly dominant homelands in Europe and North America.  This movement—conceived and implemented by Jews and their leftist lackeys—is said to portend the virtual or literal end of the White race.  It has no standard definition, and goes by various labels; a recent TOO piece by Richard McCulloch refers, for example, to the “White replacement and destruction movement” (WRDM).  It has been expressed concisely (if ambiguously) by one writer who stated that, on this thesis, “the White race will have no future, and the future will be without the White race.”  It sounds grim.

While it is true that White rule in many nations is under threat, I think it is premature—at least in the coming decades—to decry the physical elimination of Whites anywhere.  Exaggeration and hyperbole do not serve White interests.  We need to think a bit more carefully about ‘White genocide’, and indeed about the concept of genocide itself, lest we get lost in a storm of hype.  Real threats to White interests risk getting subsumed by bogus—or at least exaggerated—dangers.

Let’s start with a look at the word ‘genocide’—a term with thoroughly Jewish origins.  We can begin with standard dictionary definitions, but even here, there is a studied ambiguity.  My Merriam-Webster has a single definition:  “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group”.  Dictionary.com is very similar, adding only “or national” group.  The construction of the word is straightforward:  geno+cide, from the Greek genos- (birth, origin, or race), and Latin –cide (from cidere:  death, killing).  The word was coined in 1944 by a Polish-Jewish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin, in light of the on-going Nazi attack on Jews.  Etymologically, then, the meaning is, or should be, clear:  the physical death of an entire race of people—that is, the physical elimination of a genotype.

But upon further examination, we immediately run into problems.  First, as anyone knows who studies the issue, the Germans did not seek, nor did they implement, the physical annihilation of the Jews; rather, they wanted something much less ominous:  a German Reich cleansed of Jews, by a process of deportation and removal.  The deaths (and there were many thousands) were an incidental byproduct, not the objective.[1] Read more

Reflections on the West’s Non-White Demographic Revolution: Edmund Burke and the Totalitarian Future of the West

In May of 1789, an armed Parisian mob stormed the Bastille, a potent symbol of the ancien regime’s autocratic power. Their eventual aim was to forge a new social and political order based on the utopian theories of the French Enlightenment. This was historically unprecedented. The cry of the revolutionaries, “Liberté, fraternité, égalité, ou la mort,” reverberated across the Atlantic; it served as the inspiration for revolutions in the Caribbean and Latin America in the years between 1791 and 1826. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, drafted with the help of Thomas Jefferson, was adopted by France’s National Constituent Assembly in August of 1789. This document is the primary ideological basis of modern-day human rights. Over a century after the French Revolution, Bolsheviks and other radicals were still drawing inspiration from the original revolt against Gallican church and aristocracy. The preponderance of liberal, secular democracies among the world’s sovereign political entities is lasting testimony to the widespread influence of Jacobin thought.

Across the channel, the Whigs, one of the two political parties of the old British parliamentary system–the other being the Tories–openly sympathized with the aims of the French Revolution. Charles James Fox, a noted Whig leader, believed that it was a continuation of the Glorious Revolution, which had ended the threat of Roman Catholic absolutism in Britain by establishing a constitutional monarchy. Months after the storming of the Bastille, a prominent Whig, the dissenting clergyman Richard Price, delivered a sermon in the Old Jewry, a Presbyterian meeting-house. He enthusiastically praised the French Revolution, drawing a favorable comparison between the recent turmoil in France and the events of 1688. Price’s discourse was on the fundamental “principles” of the Glorious Revolution, which he identified as liberty of conscience, resistance to tyranny and the right to “chuse our own governors; to cashier them for misconduct; and to frame a government for ourselves.”

Edmund Burke, an Anglo-Irish Whig with strong Tory leanings, vehemently objected to the idea of cashiering errant rulers for misconduct. Fearing that an unchecked Jacobinism would fan the flames of revolution across Britain, he responded with an impassioned defense of the old order, Reflections on the Revolution in France, written in 1790.  Price’s interpretation of the Glorious Revolution and its significance was mistaken, Burke argued. King James II, through his actions, was considered to have abdicated the crown; William of Orange was then invited to depose James and rule in his stead. By invading Britain, he would save it from the prospect of a Catholic dynasty and a resurgent Catholic faith. Far from being an instance of cashiering and electing “our own governors,” what happened was “a small and a temporary deviation from the strict order of a regular hereditary succession.” The vacant throne would be filled by Mary, the eldest daughter of James; William, her husband, would rule alongside her as co-regent. Read more