Featured Articles

Burkas and Buffoons: Boris Johnson, Baroness Warsi and the War on White

/39 Comments/in , /by

Have you ever seen a scorpion try to sting a stone? Me neither. But I’ve seen something very like it. It was an article in the Guardian with the headline: “‘They’ve brought evil out’: Hungary’s poll on migration divides a nation.” The article excoriated the Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán for “whipping up xenophobic sentiment,” “spreading hate,” “sowing tension,” “spreading poison,” and making “Hungary’s small minority population even more uncomfortable.”

Foot-soldiers in the War on White

With articles like that, the Guardian has been trying to inject verbal venom into Hungarian politics. It wants to paralyse Hungary’s natural and healthy desire to put its own people first and preserve its unique ethnic character, culture and history. But the Guardian is a scorpion trying to sting a stone. Its verbal venom dribbles harmlessly away, because shrieking about “racism” and “divisive politics” simply doesn’t work in Hungary. Why not? Well, the article itself mentioned one central reason: the “small minority population” there. Thanks to its sensible refusal to accept Third-World immigrants, Hungary doesn’t have large numbers of resentful outsiders ever-ready to condemn native White Hungarians for their ideological sins and to demand harsh laws against hate speech and discrimination.

Sadly, Western nations like Britain, Australia and the United States are no longer like Hungary. They all have fifth columns of resentful outsiders imported by the hostile elite to serve as foot-soldiers in what might be called “The War on White” – on White people, culture, history, traditions, self-confidence and self-worth. Sometimes the foot-soldiers are literally violent, like the Pakistani Muslims who stabbed and burned a 15-year-old White boy to death in Scotland or the Blacks who raped, tortured and stabbed a 16-year-old White girl to death in England. But sometimes the foot-soldiers are ideological, like the Korean SJW Sarah Jeong, whom the New York Times has happily accepted onto its editorial board despite her long history of spreading “hate and poison” against Whites.

The Brown Baroness

Another ideological foot-soldier in the “War on White” is the vacuous but vindictive Muslim peer Sayeeda Warsi, who was once appointed by David Cameron to serve as nominal co-chair of the British Conservative party. The real boss was the Jewish businessman Lord Feldman. Like Cameron’s meddling in Libya, the appointment of Warsi backfired spectacularly. She did not meekly accept her intended role of ethnic token and tried to get the Tories to follow Muslim interests. That was unacceptable: like Labour under Blair, the Tories are a wholly owned subsidiary of Zion Incorporated. Warsi noisily resigned in a dispute over Israel and began to wage a guerrilla campaign on the Tories from the House of Lords. In June 2018 she claimed that the party is “poisoned by Islamophobia at every level.” In August she joined the chorus of execration that greeted an “Islamophobic” newspaper column by the Tory politician Boris Johnson. He wrote that, while he did not agree with a ban on burqas recently imposed in Denmark, he thought that women who wore them looked like “letter-boxes” and “bank-robbers.”

The Brown Baroness, Sayeeda Warsi

Read more

A Reply to Jordan Peterson

/124 Comments/in , /by

Celebrity intellectual Jordan Peterson has written a blog post, “’On the So-Called ‘Jewish Question’,” the inner quotes indicating he doesn’t think this is a real issue—something that only “reactionary conspiracy theorists” would propose.  His blog includes a link to Nathan Cofnas’s criticism of The Culture of Critique. No links to my replies—which may provide a clue about his intellectual honesty.

Indeed, one must wonder about the seriousness of someone who thinks he can settle an issue that has gotten the attention of some of the most celebrated thinkers in Western history with an 1100-word blog post.

Peterson has become popular because of his courage and knowledge in opposing political correctness. He stands up for men and for individual responsibility. To his credit he achieved celebrity status via social media, not as a creature of the mainstream media. Much of his stature rests on his use of scientific data in his arguments.  I and many others certainly appreciate this approach; he is particularly cogent in discussing sex differences and gender politics. There is not enough of this in public discourse.

However, my confidence in Peterson’s trustworthiness was shaken by his shoddy treatment of the Jewish Question, including name-calling directed at my own work. This is part of his broader offensive against identitarians, people who defend their group interests. For Peterson there are only individual interests (a bit strange for someone who approves of evolutionary biology, a subdiscipline that encompasses kin selection theory and, for humans, cultural group selection). For Peterson to admit there is a Jewish Question would be to concede the reality of group interests—not only families but religions, ethnic groups, and nations.

In the West, failure to acknowledge group interests is suicidal for its traditional European-derived populations. As a result of the imposition of massive non-White immigration and multiculturalism by elites unresponsive to popular attitudes, the traditional populations of these societies are slated to become minorities in lands they have dominated for hundreds, and in the case of Europe, thousands of years. In the West, these migrants have typically established identitarian groups intent on pursuing their group interests and with increasing power to do so as the traditional European-derived populations (which uniquely produced individualist societies) dwindle. While I would love to live in a European-derived individualist society, under such circumstances it is suicidal to pursue an individualist strategy as things are now. And unless there is drastic change, it will only get worse in the future.

Those preaching an individualist ideology fly under the radar of political correctness because they eschew White identitarianism. But, if present trends continue, the individualist culture of the West will become a distant memory as these new peoples assume power in collaboration with White social justice warriors who are already championing the very policies that Peterson abhors. Already in the U.S. the non-White voting share of the Democrat Party is 44%, and this will only increase in coming years as the Congressionally approved yearly influx of more than one million continues. The faith of the individualist is that these newcomers will readily become good Westerners and that the ethnic politics that looms so large now will become a thing of the past—a fateful gamble that will end in disaster as politics becomes increasingly racialized (~60% of Whites vote Republican, and Whites account for 90% of GOP votes), achievement differences among the various groups become a potent source of political friction, and there are declines in social cohesion and willingness to contribute to public goods. These changes are disastrous for the traditional White majorities of the West. Read more

James Edwards Responds to New York Times’ Request for Comment

/in /by

I have received several interview requests from reporters who were seeking my comment on the “Unite the Right 2” event that took place on Sunday. Most regular listeners of TPC know that I have very little patience for so-called journalists and have had a longstanding tradition of rejecting almost all inquiries from the establishment media unless they involve live television or radio.

Serge Kovaleski of the New York Times, however, is one of the few reporters with whom I am willing to speak. We’ve had a couple of pleasant exchanges over the years and he’s always been courteous and fair. I was happy to oblige when Serge contacted me yesterday to get a quick comment for an upcoming article.

You can read a partial transcript below.

Serge Kovaleski:

Hi James,

Hope you have been well since we last communicated.

For a story for tonight, I am hoping you could share some insights into why turnout, as reported, was low for yesterday’s Unite The Right event in DC. What’s going on within the alt right?

Please feel free to email me your thoughts like last time.

Thank you again, James.

Best regards,

Serge

James Edwards:

Serge,

I was able to get back to this more quickly than I originally anticipated.

Here is my quote:
“I think a couple of things are going on in the Alt Right. We discovered at Charlottesville that our free speech rights would not be protected and that the police would allow Antifa to attack us with impunity, putting us in an impossible position. If we defend ourselves, or someone does something crazy in response to the chaos, we get blamed for the violence. Also, many of us now understand that there are some genuinely unhinged elements that will show up for a public event without careful vetting. Any dissident movement attracts a mix of the highest quality, most principled people who take a stand despite social ostracism, but also a minority of those whose primary motivation is attention and shock value. That’s why most people stayed away from the second event. Because all of us know the pain of being socially ostracized, we often are too soft and accommodating to those who would do reputational damage to our movement. We are growing up, becoming more professional in our approach, and I think you see that with the more measured, controlled demonstrations from groups like Identity Europa over the past year.”

Thanks for reaching out.

James

Had I been asked the same question on cable news I would have gone on to double down and say that the lessons from Charlottesville are clear. We were denied police protection by express orders of the police chief. He made it clear why the police were not to enforce the law: the government was looking for a pretext to prevent the rally. This was all documented in the Heaphy Report, a report by a former federal prosecutor hired by the City of Charlottesville. The police chief had to resign. None of this was news in the mainstream media which continued with its fake news narrative blaming the victims of Antifa violence.

We live in a nation of cities like Charlottesville, a reverse mirror image of Maycomb, the fictional city in “To Kill a Mockingbird.” Violent Antifa activists are documented as having maced and teargassed participants in the Charlottesville rally. One of them threatened people with a home-made flamethrower. Another attacked an elderly man with a club. None of these people were prosecuted. Instead, the victims are being tried for defending themselves and the hate-crazed bigoted jurors of Maycomb-Charlottesville are convicting the victims who are being sentenced to outrageously savage sentences. These lessons have been taught us by a System that has forfeited any right to respect. The Alt Right has not gone away. It has simply learned what can and cannot be done in a country that is not free.

Now we’ll just wait and see if any of that makes it to print. I can tell you that the final product that was published after my first interview with Kovaleski – a collaborative front page article in December 2016 that featured several authors – was what one would naturally expect any piece from the New York Times to be. However, two of the very few paragraphs that were fair and objective were the two that involved yours truly. I give him due credit for that.

The New York Times logo

See also: Full Transcript of the December 2016 New York Times Interview with James Edwards

“Nah, I’m just a White guy”: “Sky King” and White Male Suicide

/56 Comments/in , /by

“It is this which makes suicide easier: for the physical pain associated with it loses all significance in the eyes of one afflicted by excessive spiritual suffering.”
Arthur Schopenhauer, Über den Selbstmord

A few days ago, Rich Russell, a 29-year-old baggage handler at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, took a a twin-turboprop Bombardier Q400 that had been parked for the night, and flew it 25 miles before deliberately ending his life by crashing it on the sparsely populated Ketron Island. Rich appears to have made a point of avoiding injuring or harming others in his pursuit of a cinematic, and, one assumes, adrenaline-fueled exit from this life. Among the particularly poignant aspects of the moments before his death was Rich’s determination to execute a barrel roll before making his way to Ketron Island. There was also his interaction with an air traffic controller, during which a nervous, distracted, emotional, and clearly troubled Rich attempted to make humorous small-talk. At one point the following exchange took place:

Rich: Hey do you think if I land this successfully, Alaska will give me a job as a pilot? 

Air traffic control: You know, I think they would give you a job doing anything if you could pull this off.  

Rich: Yeah right! Nah, I’m a White guy.

We will never know what combination of reasons led this young man to take his own life, but this particular exchange certainly resonates strongly with a growing problem: White men, specifically, are taking their lives at terrifying rates, and these rates are getting worse. Another sign that there was something deeper in the nature of Rich Russell’s death was the response from the Alt-Right community on social media. Rich was quickly given the admiring and sympathetic hashtag #SkyKing, and whereas the mainstream media and all aspects of the political Left appeared to ignore the story altogether, Alt-Right accounts were notable for changing their usernames to include plane emojis, producing tribute videos, and expressing sincere condolences for the loss of a young man everyone would be proud to call a son or brother. Even setting aside the epic nature, if that’s even an appropriate terminology, of Rich’s death, this suicide clearly touched a nerve. Why? Read more

Biopolitics, Racialism, and Nationalism in Ancient Greece: A Summary View

/15 Comments/in , , /by

The following is a brief summary of the ancient Greek theory and practice of biopolitics, racialism, and nationalism. These themes, which are so taboo in the West today, were integral to the Hellenic way of life at the founding of our Western civilization and of our unique tradition of civic self-government. I will also refer to some of the copious mainstream academic literature documenting this.

The Greeks believed that, despite their political divisions, they belonged to a common nation, defined by shared blood, language, religion, and culture. According to Herodotus, the Greeks were“one race speaking one language, with temples to the gods and religious rites in common, and with a common way of life” (Histories, 8.144). Patriotic Pan-Hellenic rhetoric – on the supreme value of Greece and the glory of sacrificing oneself to save Greece – is pervasive across centuries of Greek literature and political discourse.[1]

The Greeks had a primitive and unsystematic racial theory. They believed that peoples gradually acquired characteristics due to their environment (e.g. Ethiopians became black because of the heat) and that these traits became hereditary.[2] These observations certainly prefigure Darwin’s later evolutionary theory.

The Europeans north of Greece were generally considered barbaric and spirited, while Asians inhabiting Persia were considered effeminate and submissive. Barbarians were often thought incapable of civic self-government. The Phoenicians were sometimes perceived as having certain Semitic stereotypes (mercantile, dishonest, greedy, mercenary) but were also sometimes perceived as a fellow advanced people, comparably organized and capable in terms of trade, warfare, and civic self-government.

The Greeks did not talk about anything analogous to racial differences in IQ and it is often unclear to what extent they believed ethnic characteristics to be due to culture, geography and climate, or heredity. The Greeks were however certainly very struck by the physical differences of the few Blacks they encountered, producing pottery contrasting Caucasian and Negroid features, in styles rather reminiscent of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

The Greeks had a primitive theory and practice of eugenics. Following the practice of animal breeding and simple observation, the Greeks understood that human physical and psychological traits were at least partly hereditary. It was often said that men should choose the best women as wives so as to have the best children possible. Due to economic difficulties, infanticide through exposure was a cruel accepted practice, at the parents’ discretion. In Sparta and Rome, the killing of deformed children was mandatory, an exercise in negative eugenics. Read more

Gas-Chamber Blues Revisited: More on the “Stain and Shame” of Labour Anti-Semitism

/23 Comments/in , /by

Everything is connected, but some things are more connected than others. Let’s start with Margaret Hodge, the arrogant Jewish Labour MP whose criticism of Jeremy Corbyn and support for censorship I discussed in “Labour’s Gas-Chamber Blues.” After Hodge was threatened with disciplinary action for what she said about Corbyn, her high-powered lawyers wrote a letter to the party complaining about the way she was being treated. The letter was seven pages long and won’t have come cheap. But Hodge is a millionaire and can well afford it.

Legal eagles

Then again, maybe she got a discount or even free service, because her high-powered lawyers are an anti-Brexit Jewish firm called Mishcon de Reya. The firm’s leading light and deputy chairman is a Jewish activist and literary scholar called Anthony Julius, whose extreme ethnocentrism and ability to find anti-Semitism in the most surprising places were described by Andrew Joyce at the Occidental Observer in 2013. I myself have discussed him here too. In “High-Voltage Hate” I described how he had written a glowing review of his friend Nick Cohen’s anti-censorship polemic You Can’t Read This Book (2012), which he said “stands alongside” libertarian classics like “Milton’s Areopagitica (1644) and Mill’s On Liberty (1859).”

 

Anthony Julius, Friend Foe of Free Speech

It appeared, then, that Anthony Julius was a passionate supporter of free speech. But appearances were deceptive. In “Moshe Is Monitoring You,” I described how he had been the lawyer for Ronnie Fraser, a Jewish academic who made a pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian claim against the University and College Union. The claim was dismissed by a panel of judges as “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.” The judges condemned the academic and his supporters for betraying “a worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression.” I concluded that Julius did not genuinely believe in free speech and that he was happy to support censorship when he and his fellow Jews could benefit from it. Now more proof has arrived of his hostility to free speech.

Legal beagles

Let’s visit the ancient Mediterranean island of Malta, which was the setting, as Anthony Julius is no doubt well-aware, of Christopher Marlowe’s poisonously anti-Semitic tragedy The Jew of Malta (c. 1590). In 2017 a real tragedy struck Malta when the campaigning journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was blown up with a car-bomb by some of the corrupt businessmen and politicians whose activities she had been trying to expose. The Guardian has noted that, at the time of her death, “she was fighting 47 civil and criminal defamation lawsuits from an array of business people and politicians, brought by multiple law firms.”

Censored by death: Daphne Caruana Galizia

Can you guess the name of one of those bullying, pro-censorship law firms? That’s right: Mishcon de Reya was a leading member of the legal pack hounding Caruana Galizia at the time of her death. According to the Guardian it “specializes in … defamation cases,” but that didn’t stop its leading light Anthony Julius being appointed in December to the board of trustees at the “writers’ campaign group English PEN,” whose “mission is to defend writers and freedom of speech.” Understandably enough, Caruana Galizia’s sons have complained to English PEN about Julius’s appointment, saying that his firm Mishcon de Reya “sought to cripple her financially with libel action in UK courts. … Had our mother not been murdered, they would have succeeded.”

Jewnited They Stand

Free-speech campaigners in Britain have often complained bitterly about wide-ranging British libel laws and the way they’re used by rich foreigners to intimidate and silence critics who are subject to penalties here, whether or not they are actually based here. But Britain’s censorship-friendly laws obviously don’t bother Anthony Julius. Quite the reverse: he and his firm make large sums of money from them. Mishcon de Reya are therefore the perfect lawyers for Margaret Hodge. Like her, they don’t believe in free speech. In particular, Hodge and Mishcon de Reya want to severely restrict criticism of Israel and to end all criticism of Jewish behaviour in general.

Joint Jewry: three identical front pages

So do the “68 rabbis from across UK Judaism” who signed an “unprecedented letter condemning Labour antisemitism.” And so do the editors of Britain’s three main Jewish newspapers, the Jewish Chronicle, the Jewish News and the Jewish Telegraph, which took the “unprecedented step” of “publishing the same front page” attacking Jeremy Corbyn at the end of July 2018. The joint front pages claimed that the “stain and shame of antisemitism has coursed through Her Majesty’s Opposition since Jeremy Corbyn became leader in 2015” and complained about “the existential threat to Jewish life in this country that would be posed by a Jeremy Corbyn-led government.”

The Jewish community are campaigning for Labour to fully adopt an “internationally recognized” definition of anti-Semitism that will make it much easier to intimidate and silence critics of Israel. The coordination and unity of the campaign have been remarkable. Like wasps from a threatened nest, Jews have risen in a swarm and descended on a common enemy, buzzing furiously and stinging viciously. They’ve put aside some bitter antagonisms to do so. For example, the Orthodox rabbis who signed the joint letter would not even recognize their fellow signatory Laura Janner-Klausner, daughter of the alleged paederast Greville Janner, as a valid rabbi. As Kevin MacDonald and Steve Sailer have noted, one long-lasting strategy of Jewish life has been to turn aggression and hostility outwards on the goyim, thereby minimizing internal disputes and schisms.

Axioms of anti-racism

Another important feature of the campaign has been the way it is founded on a ludicrous but unassailable axiom of anti-racism: that a minority is always in the right and must never be accused of employing dishonest means or pursuing selfish ends. A complementary axiom of anti-racism states the exact opposite of the White majority, namely, that it is always in the wrong and constantly employs dishonest means to pursue selfish ends.

But I suspect that many members of the White majority in Britain are now seeing Jews in a new light. It’s very difficult to mistake the hysteria and hyperbole of the Jewish campaign against “anti-Semitism” or to overlook the selfish ends that it is certainly meant to serve. British Jews believe in freedom of screech, not in freedom of speech. I’m sure that many more British goys now wish the screechers would just shut up and go away.

Neovictorian reviews “Love in the Age of Dispossession” by Loretta Malakie

/15 Comments/in , /by

Love in the Age of Dispossession
Loretta Malakie

This is a deceptive book.

Oh, it delivers what it promises, and more, but in the beginning there’s a little essay about the decline of rural America, farm country (in this case, Upstate New York) and Le Grande Remplacement. Then for a while it plays at being a Generation X teen romance. A high school Goth girl is sitting on a park bench in a small town in Upstate New York: “It’s 1993, and when a boy loved a girl he made her a mixtape.”

Catherine “Kitty” Burnes is an Irish-Catholic wannabe rebel who’s been accepted at Ivy League schools, but there’s a sense that Something Is Not Right with her world. The first part of the novel subtly hints at the coming troubles, the emptying and degradation of small town America and the great White die-off that would follow. But on first reading you might think it’s something else, an almost photo-realistic description of one young American woman’s life, upwardly mobile, out of the sticks and away from the hicks and on to New York City, the vibrancy and the multiculturalism and the thousand different ethnic restaurants. The media ecology around her—and us—relentlessly tells us this is what we want, the pinnacle: Freedom! Freedom from, from neighbors who know your business, your stupid high school friends and limits on your “self-expression” and, most of all, freedom to have sex when you want, with whom you want, without pain or fear or guilt. By the time Kitty arrives to live as an adult in New York, the relentless propaganda for Erica Jong’s Zipless Fuck is well into its second generation. And instead of fulfillment, it delivers anomie.

The sequence of events here is a deadpan, devastating parody of what Cosmopolitan and Sex and the City and a score of network comedies have sold to rest of America as The Good Life: Kitty goes to Cornell, Kitty goes to Europe (though we read only the barest details of her time there), Kitty goes to New York City, Kitty goes to law school and clerks for a federal judge. And none of it satisfies or fulfills or brings any real happiness, because she’s detached, from her people and her nature as a woman. She knows something is wrong. Always something is missing.

It’s tribe that’s missing, the home ground, people who know you, knew you as a towheaded child and still see that sun-kissed hair when you pass them on the street as an adult, people who know what to expect from you. New York is the land of constant, wearing uncertainty, except for those for whom it is the home ground. Read more