Featured Articles

Alexander Dugin: The Eurasian Oracle, Part 1 of 2

Alexander Dugin

Alexander Dugin

 

The Eurasian movement, which seeks to restore Russian power and prestige, is a form of National Bolshevism based on the geopolitical theory that Moscow, Berlin, and Paris form a natural political axis and potential power center. Alexander Dugin, the founder of the Eurasian Party, writes: The new Eurasian empire will be constructed on the basic principle of opposition to the common enemy: Atlanticism and the American New World Order. A multipolar world must replace the current unipolar world currently dominated by the United States.

Much has been written over the past several years about the Russian university professor, Alexander Dugin, who has become a prominent Putin advisor although he has no official government position, nor in fact does he have the academic credentials to head the Sociology Department at Moscow State University. His advisory role as resident intellectual without portfolio appears to be based on his expertise in matters dealing with political philosophies and forms of government. Although the Russian Federation has a Constitution, the Government is quite new and untested in many regards. An intellect like Alexander Dugin could certainly be helpful in advising the President on the fundamental laws and principles that prescribe the nature, function, and limits of both the Russian and foreign governments.

Dugin, we are told, is an autodidact who has learned nine foreign languages and has immersed himself in 20th-century history and political philosophies as well as a few, rarely mentioned arcane subjects. He has to date associated mostly with the proponents of a broad Red-Brown coalition consisting of Russian communists and admirers of certain aspects of German National Socialism. Dugin, despite his informal and unorthodox background, is a highly erudite and intelligent individual, seen by most as a political pundit and activist, a geopolitician, a publicist, and spokesman for Russia’s Eurasianists. Others, fewer in number, dismiss him as a mystic, an occultist, and a former member of a privileged family of the former Communist regime. Read more

Jewish Defenses against Criticism

Mondoweiss excerpted a review of Max Blumenthal’s Goliath by Jerome Slater, including:

[Max] Blumenthal quotes Akiva Eldar, one of Israel’s greatest journalists, who sums up the findings of Israeli public opinion surveys: “Israeli Jews’ consciousness is characterized by a sense of victimization, a siege mentality, blind patriotism, belligerence, self-righteousness, dehumanization of the Palestinians, and insensitivity to their suffering.”

Well, we’ve known that for quite some time, but Slater’s point is that nothing will happen until American Jews pressure their government. Unfortunately, this will not happen “primarily because so many Jewish and other American ‘pro-Israelis’ … are impervious to the facts.” In Slater’s view, then, Blumenthal ends up preaching to the choir because his book is more. or less excluded from discussion in the mainstream media (apart from a hostile review by Eric Alterman in The Nation which, sadly, is part of the MSM).

This highlights once again the power of Zionism in the mainstream media (and why aren’t we hearing outrage in the MSM about the ethnic cleansing of the  Bedouins to make room for housing for Jews?). Even if Slater is right that the book was excluded for its strident tone, one has the feeling that the main problem is simply the facts that it presents. (Even Eric Alterman agrees that the book is “mostly technically accurate.”)

The reality is that a “siege mentality” goes a long way to explain Jewish political behavior in the U.S. as well as Israel — their fear of and loathing toward an America dominated by White Christians. As Elliott Abrams has stated, the American Jewish community “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts” (p. 86). Read more

Scottish Secession: A Beacon of Hope in an EU Intent on Dissolving National Identity

scottish-national-flag1

Talk of secessions has become more frequent at TOO of late and perhaps the one which is closest to reality at present is that of Scotland’s upcoming Referendum on independence from the UK, a Union which dates from the 17th Century (when King James VI of Scotland became James I of England, thus merging the crowns of the two ancient kingdoms) and in parliamentary terms since 1707, when the ruling classes on both sides agreed to merge. However, despite devolution of power over the last decade and a half (which has seen the UK go from a centralised, London-centric Westminster system, to an arrangement which has seen the formation of regional assemblies in the other constituent states of the UK — namely Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland), there have been increasing calls in the north for full independence, with polls showing up to 38% support, with 15–20% undecided, the gap is narrowing and secession is looking like a real possibility. This scenario has culminated in a forthcoming Referendum, which is to take place on 18 September 2014 and which will involve a simple In/Out question “Should Scotland be an independent country?” with a transitional period of 18 months, in which to make the necessary negotiations, before a proposed declaration of independence in March 2016.

The on-going debate will be of interest to many regular TOO readers, for a myriad of reasons. Interesting to note from the outset is that the movement for separation has been entirely democratic and peaceful, despite the overt hostility from the British establishment and smear campaigns against those in favour, with respected public figures even invoking Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies on more than one occasion (here and here. In order to further analyse what lessons, if any, can be learned, it is important to understand the background which has led to this paradigm shift in allegiances and the people who are behind it. Read more

The NRA: Thriving on Media Hatred

Review of The National Rifle Association and the Media: The Motivating Force of Negative Coverage by Brian Anse Patrick; 2nd edition, London: Arktos Media, Ltd. 2013

Arktos’s latest offering is a reprint (with a new foreword) of Brian Anse Patrick’s 2002 study of press coverage of the National Rifle Association between 1990 and 1998.

Some background: Well into the 1970s, the NRA was a largely apolitical organization serving the needs of about a million gun hobbyists. Following a 1977 reorganization, it became heavily involved in fighting legal restrictions on gun ownership through its new political action committee, the Institute for Legislative Action. In the years following, and despite public opinion polls revealing 83% support for an assault weapons ban and 90% support for a five-day waiting period for gun purchases, the NRA repeatedly succeeded in stopping, delaying or watering down nearly all proposed federal, state and local firearm restrictions, as well as proposed registration requirements. To this day, writes Prof. Patrick,

any adult citizen with proper identification who walks into virtually any of the thousands of K-mart or Wal-Mart retail stores in the United States, after filling out a federal self-disclosure form and satisfying the criminal history instant-check by telephone, can leave with a semiautomatic .22 caliber rifle and 1000 rounds of ammunition for not much more than $150 cash, check, or charge.

NRA membership has also been increasing steadily, surpassing five million in May 2013. The NRA is now a significant factor in many local, state and federal elections: Pres. Bill Clinton blamed the organization for the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 1994 and for Vice Pres. Al Gore’s loss of the 2000 presidential election. In short, the NRA is among the most successful interest groups of its kind. Read more

Doctor Shekel and Mr Blair: Jewish Wealth Promotes Gibbering Immigration Insanity in the UK and the US

John Derbyshire of VDare and Taki Mag writes:

Someday historians will find an explanation for the gibbering insanity of British immigration policy this past fifty years. I have none. (John Derbyshire Finds There’s Still An England — And It Could Yet Be Saved, VDare, 14th November 2013)

Actually, some aspects of this insanity are quite comprehensible. For one thing, the gibbering insanity of British immigration policy reached its peak during the New Labour government (see here). Under Tony Blair, Britain’s treasonous narcissist-in-chief, Britain was flooded with workers for the jobs native Whites won’t do, like suicide-bombing, gang-rape, sadistic murder and no-trace body-disposal.

In this, Blair’s Britain is the exact opposite of far-off Israel, which is determined to maintain its racial and religious identity using border fences and mass deportations.

One might think that Blair would consistently oppose nations that control their borders and thus deprive themselves of all of that wonderful vibrancy and social dissolution. But that would be wrong. Despite its xenophobia and remoteness, Israel is very close to Blair’s heart: according to Haaretz, he is “generally regarded as the most pro-Israel prime minister in British history” (see here).

Mendelsohn_0017

Left to Right: Lord Janner (see accusations), Baron Mendelsohn, Lord Levy]

I am not puzzled by this seeming contradiction because Blair’s rise to power was funded by an ardent Zionist Lord Levy. But Levy was forced to depart after the “Cash for Honours” scandal, in which he sold life peerages to Jewish and Asian businessmen to raise money for Blair. He was replaced as chief Labour fundraiser by Jonathan Mendelsohn, another ardent Zionist and one-time head of Labour Friends of Israel (LFI). During his premiership Blair made lots of sycophantic speeches to LFI and to the Community Security Trust, another powerful Jewish organization. When he departed and was replaced by Gordon Brown, Brown made sure to keep the sycophancy flowing. Read more

The Blankout Game versus the Knockout Game

The Knockout Game, as the whole world is starting to learn, is an activity engaged in by groups of Black “youths” whereby they attempt to sucker punch a lone victim, usually someone of another racial group and therefore White.

It is fascinating to see the way in which the mainstream media is now sidling up the problem. A lot of interest has been spurred by the good work of Colin Flaherty, the author of “White Girl Bleed a Lot,” who has done much to publicize the ‘game’ to people who haven’t had direct experience of it, including Thomas Sowell. Another factor might be prominent attacks on Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn.

Flaherty’s book actually conflates several kinds of Black-on-other violence, such as flashmob attacks, muggings, and general unruliness, but the real Knockout Game is the ‘sport’ of trying to knock a lone victim unconscious with one punch, the so-called “one hitter quitter,” as in the case of Pittsburg English teacher James Addlespurger.

The Platonic ideal, if one may misuse such terminology, is for one member of a Black gang to pull off a perfect, cartoon-like knockout punch on a supposedly unsuspecting or temporarily distracted victim, while other members give immediate positive feedback and intimidate bystanders with their presence. Sometimes no audience or back up is needed, and the assault can be carried out by an individual, as this example from London shows.

This is what is meant by the Knockout Game. The phrase is now threatening to become an umbrella term for a wide variety of Black misbehaviour, but, in its pure form, it is in fact a highly significant and telling phenomenon connected to the cant and absurdities of the modern multicultural society. Although the number of people directly affected is still rather small, the real racial dimension of the ‘game’ is actually much wider than most people suspect.

This is because the Knockout Game does not exist in a vacuum, but is the product of the awkward race relations between Blacks and Whites and another ‘game’ played by Whites that I will refer to as the “Blankout Game”: the simulation of racial blindness that leaves them open to attack by practitioners of the Knockout Game. This is the true root of the Knockout Game: unacknowledged racial awareness combined with feigned racial blindness.

The most famous example of the ‘game,’ due in part to the excellent security video footage, was the recent attack on Addlespurger. The 50-year-old English teacher was filmed being spectacularly knocked out by a punch from a 15-year-old Black youth. The media and Addlespurger himself claim to be baffled by what they describe as a random attack, but this is obviously a case of reality denial rather that an unawareness of reality.

The video of the Addlespurger attack makes for interesting viewing. First of all it shows that the attack took place in the middle of the day and in a reasonably busy area. There are several other people around, all of whom are obviously intimidated by the gang, and so do nothing to intervene.

Even in conditions like this, no reasonably intelligent person walking down an ally in the face of a gang of Black teenagers could be completely at their ease and oblivious of danger. Yet, Addlespurger continues to approach the group in just this way, with a completely open posture and looking ahead rather than at the gang. It is just as if the approaching gang were a group of old ladies or boy scouts. Addlespurger here is clearly playing the White man’s Blankout Game.

A closer view of the body language associated with the Blankout Game can be seen in this video, which shows a 2006 mugging attack in a McDonalds. The victim plays tries the usual ploy of ignoring the threatening Black man, and making a point of showing that he is not distrustful – and thereby implicitly racist – by turning his blind side to his soon-to-be assailant.


News reports of incidents of the Knockout Game suggest a similar pattern, with White victims either being unaware or feigning unawareness of their assailants, as this account from the recent murder of Michael Daniels in reveals:

The first blow struck Daniels on the side of his head, a witness said.

“Daniels staggered and looked around. There was no one in front of him. The kid who threw the punch was young, maybe 10 or 12, and had lunged from the side to strike Daniels, according to a witness who gave a statement to police.

Daniels stood 6-feet, 1-inch and weighed 240 pounds, according to arrest records.

The kid and four other teenage boys ran across the street and stopped to look back at Daniels.

Then a taller kid in a red hoodie, the hood tied close around his face, and the kid who threw the first punch ran back toward Daniels. The smaller kid waved back the others, a witness said.

When the two reached Daniels, the bigger kid in the hoodie started swinging.

Three punches and a kick dropped Daniels to his knees, broke his glasses and left him sprawled on the sidewalk, said Joe Brown, who says he saw the attack from an upstairs window.

The attack on the young lady in London fits into this pattern. According to her own testimony, she was aware of her attacker’s interest in her before the attack and must therefore have heard him running up behind her, but rather than taking any kind of evasive or bracing action, she simply continued walking in an open and unguarded manner, making her an easy sucker punch victim.

One of the characteristics of modern urban societies is the way that people politely, or not so politely, ignore each other. This habit of treating other people as if they are not there is essential to the smooth running of dense urban societies, simply because we don’t have time to treat everyone who passes within our orbit on a one-to-one human basis – nor would we want to!

In well-run homogenous societies, like Japan for example, where there are high levels of mutual trust based on racial homogeneity and shared culture, ignoring others or turning your back on them is hardly a problem. For this reason you will often find Japanese people asleep on trains and in other public places in complete safety.

It is a different story in multiracial societies, especially those like America, where there is deep-seated animosity and smouldering distrust between the different racial groups. In general, American Blacks harbour resentment and feelings of animosity against American Whites, who, in turn – quite sensibly – distrust Blacks. But the questions are how they can express that distrust and whether the society will allow them to do so.

Where such feelings exist, the natural response is for the antagonistic populations to separate out, and this has happened to a considerable degree in America at the community level, with self-segregation and White Flight.

But at a street level, things are more complicated, and Whites and people of other groups may suddenly find themselves in awkward and potentially dangerous situations, as Addlespurger did.

The correct natural response when a potentially dangerous group of young men from a different racial group appears is to be extremely wary. This should involve such actions as keeping them in view, bracing oneself, readying a weapon – makeshift or not – for self-defence, and maintaining as much distance as is possible by  circling around the group, crossing to the other side of the street, or even doing a U-turn.

The problem, however, is that multicultural societies unnaturally strive to maintain myths of racial harmony and equivalence. This means that any of the above actions can easily be considered inflammatory. The victims know this and so do the victimizers, who know they can use any of the above actions as a provocation and justification for an attack.

This may be what happened to Phoebe Connolly, a victim in Washington, D.C.  Connolly didn’t allow the attack to impinge  on her liberalism:

I ultimately, I’ve moved past it and I really have no hard feelings about what has happened. And I just see it as another reason why we need to better support our youth with activities and youth programs, which is actually what I do for work, and it’s great to see teenagers do incredible things when they’re supported and empowered.

Connolly certainly wouldn’t want to show any fear of an approaching Black man. That would be racist.

The only thing the Western multicultural society allows a White person to do in such cases is to pretend that nothing is wrong, and walk past such groups as if they were all members of the same racial and ethnic trust group. Any other behaviour would be considered ‘racist’ or an expression of ‘unfair stereotyping.’ In fact, to counter the natural rush of feelings of fear and discomfort, special efforts must be made to mask emotions and appear nonchalant, unconcerned, and open.

The methods used to achieve this include the forced smile, looking at a spot in the distance, looking unconcernedly away, staring at the ground, and showing a lack of positional awareness. All of these responses either lower the victim’s defences or signal to the Blacks the victim’s awkward racial awareness. The bottom line is he makes himself in the eyes of his assailants an easy and worthy target for a sudden punch.

One of the media myths quickly developing about the Knockout Game is that the victims are almost always unsuspecting and that the attack is random and out of the blue. This was the line followed in the coverage of the Addlespurger case. It is part of the all-out effort to de-race the crime.

Yes, the victims may sometimes be unaware of their impending attacks, either through old age, drunkenness, or a surfeit of liberal propaganda (a kind of social blindness as well as an individual blindness). But, given the reality that America is an intensely race-aware society and that people are hardly naive about the racial aspects of crime, it is likely that most of the victims of the Knockout Game are in fact aware of the danger and are instead playing their own dangerous Blankout Game, acting cool, opening up, and hoping for the best.

The Knockout Game feeds on post-racial myths and politically correct acts of simulated racial blindness. In modern Western societies there is no shortage of either.

Fear and Loathing of the Impending Roma Invasion in the UK

britain_immigration-443377

Express (UK) caption: Roma migrants are taking advantage of Britain’s generous benefits culture

There is an increasing awareness that the May elections for the European Parliament could be a watershed moment. After listing most of the nationalist parties, Timothy Garton Ash, who wears his hostility to all things nationalist on his sleeve, writes in the LA Times:

“Today is the beginning of the liberation from the European elite, the monster in Brussels,” cried [the Dutch Party for Freedom’s Geert] Wilders. “Patriotic parties,” added [Marine] Le Pen [leader of  France’s National Front], want “to give freedom back to our people” rather than being “forced to submit their budget to the headmistress.”

There is nothing at all coming from the current leadership in Berlin, Paris or Brussels (forget London) that is likely to reverse the tide that’s buoying these parties. Behind their typical 10% to 25% standing in opinion polls is a wider popular discontent with unemployment, austerity and a Brussels EU bureaucracy that spews out regulations about the specifications of your vacuum cleaner and how much water you can use in a toilet flush.

If the tide continues to rise, what happens? (“Is Europe headed for divorce?“)

Ash suggests that a strong showing in the elections would “drive the mainstream socialists, conservatives and liberals closer together.” But unless these elites completely change course on immigration and national identity, I rather  doubt that they can stem the tide. Read more