Featured Articles

Hybrid Fabrications versus Greek Originality

/in , /by

The Guardian was beaming with confidence this July 11 announcing Tim Whitmarsh’s edited book, The Romance Between Greece and the East, as a major breakthrough in scholarship recasting the ancient Greek world “from an isolated entity to one of many hybrid cultures in Africa and in the East”. Whitmarsh’s book is framed along the same lines as Martin Bernal’s earlier attempt in Black Athena (1989) to place the origins of Greece in Africa and the Semitic Near East. Whitmarsh’s calls the argument that the Greeks owed their brilliance to themselves, their own ethnicity as Indo-Europeans, a “massive cultural deception”.

In our Western world of immigrant multiculturalism any idea which attributes to Greeks, Romans, medieval Christians or modern Europeans any achievement — without including as co-partners the Moslems, Africans and Orientals — is designated as a massive deception. The scholarship promoted by our current elites demands a view in which Europeans don’t exist except as hybrids, borrowers, and imitators.  But the historical and archeological evidence adduced by Whitmarsh and multiculturalists in general never goes beyond showing that there were connections between the Greeks (or Europeans generally) and their neighbours. They have an easy time showing what many have shown before, that the Greek mainland was connected to the Mediterranean world via trade, travelling, colonizing activities, and the residence of some Greeks outside Greece.

They also repeat as new discoveries what European scholars had already started showing in the eighteenth century, that ancient Greece was preceded by Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations and that the Indo-Europeans who arrived in the Greek mainland and established the Mycenaean civilization in the early second millennium borrowed some basic civilizational tools from these older civilizations, including some mythological motifs and the alphabet from the Phoenicians.  From these general borrowings, and without even caring to understand the unique world out of which the Mycenaeans came, a world which originated in the steppes and was characterized by horse riding, chariot fighting, aristocratic liberalism, and an ethos of heroism, which was vividly captured in the Homeric epics of the eighth century (an ethos utterly absent in the Epic of Gilgamesh), the multicultics rush to conclude that the achievements of the archaic and classical Greeks — such as Pindar, Sophocles, Thucydides, Aeschylus, Anaxagoras, Anaximander, Euripides, Thales, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle — were “hybrid” achievements.  Read more

Nationalist Parties in the European Union: Electoral Goals and Political Hopes

/2 Comments/in , /by

euccp

This is an abridged version of the talk to American Freedom Party members, given in Los Angeles, July 6, 2013.

At first sight it appears that launching a nationalist or a racialist, or a so-called right- wing party in Europe is a relatively easy task — easier than in the USA, where the two party system reigns supreme. But there are often legal and electoral tricks and traps in Europe, not to mention the powerful impact of the ideology of political correctness that hinders nationalist parties in Europe to advance in the political system. Unlike the United States, all 28 member states in the European Union have a fair number of nationalist parties, many of them with representatives at the national, local, or at the European level—although the number of their representatives is almost negligible and their voices hardly audible.

The advantage of the European electoral process is the proportional representation system, common to all states in the EU. It means in practice that a party, however large or small it may be, is assigned a number of seats in the parliament, or at the local council, or municipal level,  based on its proportional score in the election. Thus, if a party obtains 5 %, or 10 %, or 30% of votes it will be theoretically awarded with 5 %, 10%, or 30% of seats in a national parliament or at a local city council. Read more

Maurice Bardèche’s Vision of the Future: Excerpts from “Nuremberg or the Promised Land”

/in , /by

Excerpts from Maurice Bardèche’s Nuremberg or the Promised Land, translated by George F. Held

The appearances of justice [at the Nuremburg Trial] were maintained perfectly. The defense had few rights, but these rights were respected. … Several defendants were discharged. In the end the forms were perfectly well observed, and never was a more debatable justice rendered with more propriety.

For this modern machinery, as one knows, had the result of resurrecting a jurisprudence like that of Negro tribes. The victorious king is set on his throne and has his witchdoctors called in: then, in the presence of warriors sitting on their heels, someone cuts the throats of the vanquished chiefs. We start to suspect that all the rest is a bit of comedy, and the public, after eighteen months, is no longer taken in by this kind of play-acting. The chiefs have their throats cut because they were vanquished; the atrocities with which one reproaches them, well, no just man can avoid saying to himself that the commanders of the Allied armies could be reproached with atrocities just as serious: the phosphorus bombs well counterbalance the concentration camps. An American court which condemns Göring to death has no more authority, in the eyes of men, than would a German court which presumed to condemn Roosevelt. A court which creates the law after being seated on its bench brings us back to the beginning of history. One did not dare to judge so at the time of Chilperic.[1] The law of the strongest is a more honest way. When the Gaul shouts Vae victis,[2] at least he does not take himself for Solomon. But this court succeeded in being an assembly of Negroes in starched collars: this is the plan for our future civilization. It is a masquerade, a nightmare: they are dressed as judges, they are serious, they are capped with ear-phones, they have the heads of patriarchs, they read papers with a saccharine voice in four languages at the same time, but in reality they are Negro kings, it is a costume party for Negro kings, and in the icy and staid room one can almost hear in the background the war drums of the tribes. They are very clean Negroes and perfectly modernized. And they have obtained without knowing it, in their Negro naiveté and in their Negro unconsciousness, a result that none of them undoubtedly had envisaged: they have rehabilitated by their bad faith even those whose defense was almost impossible, and they have given to millions of destitute German refugees, ennobled by defeat and their condition as the vanquished, the right to scorn them. Göring mocked them, for he well knew that they were rendering him right in everything, since they, with their panoply of judges, were paying homage to the law of the strongest, on which he had based his own law. Göring laughed to see Göring disguised as a judge judge Göring disguised as a convict (p. 14). Read more

Maurice Bardèche’s Vision of the Future, Part I

/1 Comment/in , /by

Maurice-Bardèche_la-terra-promessa_edizioni-effepi

Translator’s Preface to Maurice  Bardèche’s Nuremberg or the Promised Land, edited for TOO

Maurice Bardèche’s Nuremberg or the Promised Land was the first extended critique of the Nuremberg Trial. For a Frenchman to criticize that trial and especially the French role in it in 1948 took great courage: the book was banned in France, copies of it were seized, and Bardèche in 1952 was sentenced to a year in prison, although he spent only a few weeks there before being pardoned. His criticisms of the Nuremberg Trial have since been repeated by many others. In fact, just two years later in a subsequent work, Nuremberg II ou les Faux Monnayeurs (Nuremberg II or the Counterfeiters), Bardèche was able to cite a long list of others who had likewise criticized the fairness of that trial. Nuremberg or the Promised Land may with some justice be viewed as a polemic. Bardèche himself in effect admits it: “I needed to write it: that is my only excuse for this indiscretion.”

But if it is a polemic, it is also very far from being a mere rant. Most of the book is in fact a painstakingly logical “criticism of testimony,” specifically of the testimony produced by the French delegation at Nuremberg in support of the charge that during the occupation the Germans had tried to exterminate the French or, more exactly, had had a “will to exterminate.” The charge is absurd and Bardèche easily demonstrates its absurdity. But its absurdity is what makes him so upset: he cannot forgive the French delegation that it will allow a future “German historian” to show that “France lied.” Bardèche concentrates upon this part of the trial, however, not because the French were responsible for it and he is French but because it deals with events that he and his readers know firsthand and hence can judge whether the treatment of them at the trial was fair or not.

Bardèche’s book is a classic. It is of interest today primarily because of what it says about the future. Throughout the first three quarters of the book the discussion of the trial is interlaced with somber warnings and ominous admonitions to the reader: “One is proposing a future to us, one does so by condemning the past. It is into this future also that we want to see clearly. It is these principles that we would like to look at directly. For we already foresee that these new ethics refer to a strange universe, a universe with something sick about it, an elastic universe where our eyes no longer recognize things.” Read more

Why Are Some Democracies More Equal Than Others?

/in , /by

Almost any time neoconservatism is discussed, whether in a positive or negative light, it is treated as a kind of hegemonic monolith that has not changed since the last generation of its adherents began gaining prestige in the 1970s — or even since it began taking form decades earlier. Obviously this is a mistake, but sorting out its various “waves” is a task for another time (and likely a task for Paul Gottfried).  In an attempt to eschew the complex pedigree of neoconservatives in the last half-century, I will, for the moment, only discuss the post-9/11 variety of neocons.

The terrorist attacks of September 11th proved to be a crystallizing moment for neocons. Since the end of the Cold War, they had lacked not only political power, but more importantly — a driving purpose. While vainly trying to unify under an “anti-Clinton” banner, they meandered into intellectual self-indulgence in an attempt to regain the drive they had possessed while battling the USSR. Not content to rest on their laurels, odd proposals to re-capture “national greatness” came about, similarly, bizarre calls to invade Africa popped out of thin air. Like their Trotskyite forbearers, they became a fairly insulated bunch that spoke to few people outside their own circles, and were happy to theorize and pontificate amongst one another, with their thoughts steadily drifting away from any tangible political reality.

In 2001, when Bush Jr. came to power, they did too, but they still lacked a unifying goal. When a new, seemingly existential, threat crashed its way to the crosshairs of global attention, all of this changed. Digressing slightly, I will admit that pinning down a precise program or doctrine to the neocons can prove somewhat difficult. Part of this comes from their willingness to shape shift — such as their jump from Democrat Scoop Jackson’s 1972 presidential bid to Ronald Reagan’s cabinet less than a decade later. Another more important difficulty comes from the fact that it has become somewhat fashionable for neoconservatives to deny their own existence. It reminds me of a Marxist adage I hear from time to time: “An ideology is hegemonic when its adherents deny its existence”. Jonah Goldberg penned a whole three–part series of articles shortly after the Iraq War began that claimed no such thing existed — this is hilariously disproven by how many neocons openly and proudly label themselves as such. Read more

More evil from Heidi Beirich

/in , /by

Our friend  Heidi  Beirich of the  SPLC has another  outrageous gem about me (“Long Adored by Anti-Semites, California Prof Now Glorifies Violence“). A couple of factual issues: I am not a “co-host” of David Duke’s program and have never used the phrase “Zionist gun-grabbers,” although I have noted that Jewish publications have pointed to the central role of Jewish activists and  organizations in the gun control movement.

Worse, she sent an email to university colleagues stating I was a  Holocaust denier. As everyone knows, I have I never endorsed Holocaust denial or permitted Holocaust denial ideas to be published in outlets that I control. She is perfectly well aware of this (perhaps accounting for avoiding that charge in her article). As usual, it’s guilt by association.

In the email she also called me a “White supremacist”—leftspeak for Whites who think that Whites, like all other human groups, have interests. I am waiting for a statement by the ADL and the Jewish Studies Department that Jews have no moral or practical reason to attempt to remain a demographic majority in Israel. And a statement from the SPLC condemning American Jewish groups that support apartheid in Israel.

My blurb for Kyle Bristow’s book was confined to the main point of the book which is a fictional account of the Salutrean hypothesis (which has its scientific defenders) and the suppression of this idea by the forces of political correctness. Being a busy person, I did not read the passage she complains about and certainly don’t endorse violence against Mark Potok despite his evil behavior.

And if you look at the offending article “Heidi goes to heaven,” Heidi’s death is simply a setup for the satire, nothing more. There is no plot in which she is assassinated because of her (loathsome) activities. Her death is the result of a defective bomb  built by a “greasy wannabe terrorist … who asked the $PLC to lay out one hundred grand for a so far undisclosed false flag ploy, but knew as much about building bombs as pigs about flying.”

In order for the satire to work, she had to die somehow; the accidental detonation of a bomb certainly didn’t raise any red flags with me.

However, we at TOO certainly don’t want to tread on the sensibilities of sensitive souls like Beirich. I am advised that  Colhaze may bow to this pressure and revise the article to have her die of a  surfeit of donuts—which somehow seems more plausible anyway and has the virtue of being self-induced.  Read more

Are Whites Pathological? Yes and No: Part 2

/in , , /by

Go to Part One.

Part one of this writing examined the status of White people from an individualistic, in contrast to an aggregate, perspective.  Part two explores the implications of that analysis and depends on the reader’s familiarity with the material in part one.

White analysis, advocacy, and action need to be grounded in the multiple realities that comprise total reality.  In this writing, aggregate- and individual-based analyses yielded different, and, seemingly at least, contradictory, truths about the White circumstance.  Yet another frame of reference to bring to bear on this concern is the moment-to-moment experienced existence of actual White people — you, me, and every other White person alive now, as well as those who have already completed their journeys through life and those not yet born.  From that, call it, existential perspective, there are as many White realities and there are, or have been or will be, White people.  Living, breathing, mortal White people don’t live their lives in the collective or in the abstract.  They fashion particular lives within their particular circumstances, and that undertaking turns out well for them or it doesn’t.  Whether it is immoral or shortsighted, it is understandable that individuals will do what they can, including with respect to racial matters, to ensure that they and their loved ones do well — gain status and power and material wealth and all that can provide — both now and in the future. Read more