Featured Articles

TEAM Westport: A Case Study in anti-White Activism

“This is an exciting moment to be working on this. There are more non-white kids being born now than white kids.” TEAM Westport, October 7 2014.

“We should continue working with the Board of Education here in Westport to prepare students for the world from a multicultural point of view.” TEAM Westport, May 3 2011.

Introduction

Westport, Connecticut is a pleasant coastal town with a population of 26,000 that boasts above-average incomes and is 92.6% White. It has a busy library, a number of successful and respected schools, several pristine public squares, an observatory, a natural history museum, and a number of independent news outlets. Unfortunately, since 1994 the town has also been home to a rather innocuously named organization called TEAM Westport. Its purpose is anything but innocuous. TEAM is an acronym for: Together Effectively Achieving Multiculturalism, and for over 20 years this group has been insidiously poisoning the socio-cultural well of its surroundings with a persistence that is as remarkable as it is sickening. For more than 20 years its efforts have attracted little attention beyond the precincts of the town. This changed a few weeks ago when one TEAM project caused the briefest of blips on the national radar, which in turn brought it to my attention.

The project in question was TEAM’s annual essay contest, now in its fourth year. Although TEAM is not an official part of the school district, or indeed the school system, its network of influence has allowed the essay contests to be promoted among children via the schools and other educational avenues. The annual contest has always engaged in race-baiting among the young. However, this year’s contest was presumably a step too far, or too soon, for those behind it. The prompt, unveiled in January, reads:

In 1,000 words or less, describe how you understand the term ‘white privilege’. To what extent do you think this privilege exists? What impact do you think it has had in your life — whatever your racial or ethnic identity — and in our society more broadly?

The subversive nature of the question wasn’t lost on the growing number of Whites who, in the Trump era, are becoming increasingly sensitive to such manoeuvres, and less hesitant in expressing their opposition. In its predictably biased reporting of reactions to this year’s essay contest, the New York Times reported that “merely mentioning white privilege seems to have struck a nerve, with much of the criticism coming from out of town.” This was presumably in response to comments appearing on TEAM’s Facebook page, which included the astute observation: “This is nothing more than race baiting. You are a joke.” The New York Times, like TEAM Westport representatives, dismissed such reactions as “hand-wringing among adults,” while focussing on the more susceptible and intellectually and ideologically vulnerable children, who, in the words of the New York Times, “appear to have greeted the essay contest and the resulting uproar with a shrug.” Journalistic investigation into the history and activities of TEAM Westport both began and ended at this single essay contest, and the story appears to have been mentioned only in order to sneer at those who objected to the concept of “White guilt.”

I found this slanted and superficial coverage profoundly dissatisfying, and resolved to conduct my own investigation into the deeper roots of this affair. As a White ethno-nationalist, I have certain beliefs about multiculturalism and its advance in recent decades. In particular, it is my belief that multiculturalism is both an ideology and a deliberate process. By the latter, I mean that multiculturalism is not something that occurs “naturally,” but is rather a process advanced with programmatic design.  Although I have tested and confirmed these beliefs many times previously, the career of TEAM Westport would provide an opportunity to test these beliefs once more in the form of a case study. In light of my pre-existing understanding of multiculturalism, a number of questions presented themselves immediately: Who are the members of TEAM Westport, and what is their ideological and cultural background? Is there any evidence of Jewish influence in and around this organization? How and why has the group been given extensive access to the local educational establishment? Where does this group get its funding, and what does it use this funding for? What does the group mean by “achieving multiculturalism,” and what are the chief methods by which this group seeks to achieve it? What role, if any, does pathological altruism play in the activities of the organization? Read more

The Alt-Right and the Election of Trump: the End of the Dominant Ideology?

The following is a translation of an interview given to the French daily Présent. Présent,  a magazine dealing with culture, politics and art, is popular among traditional Catholics and identitarians, and is also sympathetic to France’s National Front.           

On January 18, Libération  lashed out at the American Alt-Right, of which you are considered to be one of its leading intellectuals, along with your book Homo americanus; rejeton de l’ère postmoderne  (published in France by the publishing house  Akribeia, 2010 and soon to be reissued in the USA). Could you tell us more about this movement, launched a few years ago by Richard Spencer, who is viewed by the far left as very dangerous, and who on January 20, during a television interview, was violently assaulted, without there being any voice of outrage? 

The term “Alt-Right” is a bit vague, lending itself perfectly to various usages by various opposition movements within the Euro-American right-wing, including those that have nothing in common with Spencer’s version of the Alt-Right. The System-friendly media, in this case Libération in France, the FAZ in Germany, or The New York Times across the Atlantic, are currently in the process of forging demonological guilt-by-association memes to portray Spencer and his version of the Alt-Right.  Read more

The Dark Side of the Civil Rights Movement

The dominant narrative of the civil rights movement is a story about selfless Whites fighting Southern injustice. Usually the movement is presented as made up of devout Christians and freedom fighters, struggling against the prejudices of ignorant Southern Whites. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is the civil rights movement was plagued by the same forces that plague any setting where Whites and Blacks intermingle: violence, theft, criminality, resentment, and sexual dominance.

White civil rights workers who left the North to organize resistance to Southern segregation approached their jobs with religious fervor. One White woman captures this spirit: “There is no doubt in my mind this is worth dying for. … This love is growing every day and will continue to expand and expand until it defeats all hate all over the world” (Rothschild, 1982, p. 133). Please note the woman’s messianic mentality: she wants to defeat hate “all over the world.”

White civil rights workers were shocked to discover that local Blacks in Mississippi resented and resisted White domination of the civil rights movement. Grassroots Blacks wanted local, Black control of civil right organizations and sought to ensure White men and women were in a subordinated, powerless position (Rothschild, 1982, p. 132). Blacks believed Whites were smug and acted superior to Blacks (Watson, 2010, p. 267). On the other hand, White civil rights workers came to view Blacks as essentially lazy and stupid (Watson, 2010, p. 267). White volunteers were greeted with suspicion and mistrust. Read more

Two Cheers For Trump Advisor Mike Anton—He Has The Right Enemies

A major London bookmaker, Ladbrokes, has given odds of 11–10 that Trump will resign or be impeached — almost even money. Of course, this is not in the least surprising given that Trump is loathed by the entire Establishment, Left to Right and is now being victimized by “Deep State” operatives in the intelligence community installed by previous administrations.

In the grand scheme of things, Trump is something of a miracle. In his case, an oligarchic system designed to pick candidates who would continue what is in effect a bipartisan campaign against the Historic American Nation failed, spectacularly.

Much of the recent hysteria has focused on three high-level Presidential advisers to the president: Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and Mike Anton.

Anton, now the senior director of strategic communications at the National Security Council, has given the clearest indication of his attitudes. Written under the pseudonym of “Publius Decius Mus” (a Roman consul who sacrificed his life for the success of his troops) his September 2016 essay “The Flight 93 Election” is in tune with Alt Right themes—with some important exceptions,.

Anton’s essay caused a stir on the Right, but it was pretty much ignored by the Left until he was unmasked by The Weekly Standard on February 2 [Decius Mus Unmasked] because of his usefulness in smearing the Trump administration. Since then, it’s been hysterical condemnation.

beautifullosersFundamentally, Anton claimed that Conservatism Inc. had completely failed because it refused to acknowledge that the long-term effects of importing a Third World population would be the end of conservatism. Conservatives Inc. types are “beautiful losers,” as Sam Francis described them — garnering huge sums of money but quite content with their sinecures while the movement as a whole is “headed off a cliff…The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation.”

Conservatives, according to Anton, are

the Washington Generals of American politics. Your job is to show up and lose, but you are a necessary part of the show and you do get paid. To the extent that you are ever on the winning side of anything, it’s as sophists who help the Davoisie oligarchy rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-industrialization, trade giveaways, and endless, pointless, winless war.

Perhaps the most amazing thing about Neocon and Conservative Inc. hostility toward Trump was that it was obvious to everyone what a Hillary Clinton presidency would mean—as Anton said, it would be

pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most ‘advanced’ Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England.”

Read more

Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, as applied in the Trump era

Mainstream media, Hollywood, Academia and the Regressive Left in general have adopted Saul Alinsky’s infamous “Rules for Radicals.” If you know what the “rules” are, you can better predict what’s coming from these Left Wing saboteurs.  Keep in mind that these days the Enemy referred to in the “Rules” is the Trump administration, particularly the President, his top advisers, the press secretary and cabinet members. Out on the street the category of Enemy can be expanded to “anybody who disagrees with you.”

Here’s a quick look at some of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

Exhibit A here are the Saturday Night Live sketches ridiculing Trump (Alec Baldwin) and Press Secretary Sean Spicer (Melissa McCarthy) that have resulted in a ratings bonanza for a show that was otherwise fading from view.

Alec Baldwin as Donald Trump on SNL

Read more

Cowboy Kali Yuga: A Review of “Hell or High Water”

Neo-Westerns are the rough terrain that remain untamed and unclaimed by the heebs. Political Correctness does not sell here. Any feminist watching one would go into conniptions from their “toxic masculinity.” The men have guns and the women have curves. No one trusts the bank and everybody owes.

Hell or High Water is a tale of poor Southern White folks — Texans to be specific — suffering at the hands of usurious banksters who want to seize the land these people raised their kids on as the shylock’s pound of flesh. It’s not the protagonists that I’m referring to as “these people.” It’s the supporting cast. This is a film that excels at capturing the atmosphere of a place passing through the sieve of time. The quality of character that made the land, its sky above, and the people between so very great are being filtered out by modernity. The modern world is robbing Texas towns of their soul and the soil of its blood. In Hell or High Water we see the sovereign Lone Star demoted to one more vassal state in Weimerica.

I’ll tell it to you straight.: We’ve got us here a story you’ve all heard before. Two cow-pokes-turned-bank-robbers. Two Texas Rangers trying to out-think and out-maneuver them into the reach of the long arm of the law. That said, the story could take place over a century and a half ago. But this is a tale of the here and now in the dismal financial fallout of Obama’s America — and the desperation of much of White America.

Spoiler Alert: The following contains a lot of plot summary. The movie is highly recommended, but you might want to see it first.

Two masked bandits approach a branch of the Texas Midlands Bank. As the audience will later learn, Midlands Bank issued what is known as a reverse mortgage, where the bank loans a homeowner (usually elderly) enough money to keep the house until they die. Then the bank repossesses the house. It’s an offer sometimes made to a person who can no longer afford their home, or is living on valuable land unbeknownst to them. It won’t take much surfing on YouTube to uncover how many financial advisers warn their clients not to agree to such a loan. The mother of these bank robbers has passed away, so now Toby and Tanner Howard (played by Chris Pine and Ben Foster, respectively) have only a few days left to pay the debt before the bank forecloses on the property. Toby is divorced, with two sons who are not impressed with their father and his inability to pay child support.

Graffiti on the rear of the bank reads “3 TOURS IN IRAQ BUT NO BAILOUT FOR PEOPLE LIKE US.” The writing on the wall sets the populist tone for the film. If Texas Midlands Bank does not exist to safeguard the interests of Texans, why should it be allowed to exist? Their only interest seems to be capitalism for the sake of capitalism. Read more

Obey Your Ethnic Masters: A Simple Message for Stale Pale Folk

I’ve always been fascinated by the concept of infallibility and the promise of certain knowledge. Singer Neil Young keeps on searching for a heart of gold. I keep on searching for certainty. Or rather: I search for more of it, because there is an infallible system of certain knowledge. It’s called mathematics and I think it’s mankind’s greatest intellectual achievement. Among much else, mathematicians can say with absolute certainty that prime numbers never run out and that we can never square a circle with straight-edge and compass.

The Infallible Tyrant

But here’s a curious thing: mathematicians don’t claim infallibility. Except that it’s not curious. Mathematicians don’t need to claim it: they have an objective way to prove their ideas. “Infallibility” is an ideological claim, an assertion of power and dominance (actual or desired), not something that a true system of knowledge ever needs to wield. As Bertrand Russell pointed out: “Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion.”

What’s true of theology is also true of politics. Here is Leszek Kołakowski, the great Polish philosopher and intellectual historian, in Main Currents of Marxism (1978):

A particularly blatant example of aggressive Stalinism was the ideological invasion of the natural sciences. … [I]f we take a panoramic view of the history of those years we may perceive a certain gradation of ideological pressure, corresponding roughly to the hierarchy of the sciences established by Comte and Engels. Pressure was almost zero in mathematics, fairly strong in cosmology and physics, stronger still in the biological sciences, and all-powerful in the social and human sciences. (Op. cit., Vol. III, “The Breakdown,” ch. 4, “The Crystallization of Marxism-Leninism after the Second World War,” pp. 131 and 139)

Stalinism was aggressive because it claimed infallibility, as Kołokowski notes: “When the party is identified with the state and the apparatus of power, and when it achieves perfect unity in the shape of a one-man tyranny, doctrine becomes a matter of state and the tyrant is proclaimed infallible. … Lenin had always been right [and] the Bolshevik party was and had always been infallible” (Op. cit., pp. 4 and 93). Marxism is, in effect, the marriage of politics and religion, mixing the psychology of the latter with the secular concerns of the former. Where Christianity has an infallible Magisterium or an infallible pope, Marxism has an infallible dialectic and a succession of infallible leaders. Read more