Featured Articles

What to read? (Part 5) A White Character Survey: Envy in Politics and Literature (Part 1)

/14 Comments/in , /by

 

gericault

Théodore Géricault, “Envious woman,” oil 1822

Among Europeans, since antiquity, envy and jealousy have been main driving forces in the political process, resulting in a treasure trove of different literary genres. All European languages make a fine distinction between envy and jealousy, although both notions often overlap. The Germans have an additional nuanced word for this character aberration, i.e. “Schadenfreude,” a compound noun literally meaning when someone rejoices over someone else’s bad luck.

Today, the notion of schadenfreude may apply to Whites who savor the professional failure of their racial next-of-kin. Schadenfreude has been for centuries a dominant feature among White intellectuals, rulers and politicians, although for obvious reasons, none of them has ever been eager to publicly admit this character defect. Outbursts of poorly concealed envy can be observed today among a number of White nationalists, White self-appointed leaders, and White spokesmen, faking sympathy and compassion for their better-skilled rivals on the one hand, yet gleefully gloating in private over their next-of-kin’s minor faux pas on the other. Over the last half a century envy and jealousy have been the prime reason for the lack of unity among so-called White movements and parties in Europe and the USA.

The most glaring case study of the destructive envy can be observed today among individuals critical of celebrity billionaire Donald Trump and his beautiful wife and intelligent, attractive children, who in turn are now being assaulted by a lethal barrage of pathological envy and jealousy, not only by predictable envy-ridden non-White detractors, but also by more intelligent, jealous White rivals. The late French-Romanian philosopher of gloom and doom, Emile Cioran, a household name among Alt-Right and New-Right intellectuals and sympathizers, describes political rivalry as just another shorthand for the envy contest.

More or less all humans are envious; politicians are absolutely envious. One becomes envious insofar as one can’t stand anybody next to himself or above himself.  Engaging oneself in a project, a project of any kind, even the most trivial one, means sacrificing oneself to envy — the supreme prerogative of all humans (French original, p. 1009).

Read more

The Lying Press looks Inward

/22 Comments/in , , /by
Fact

Articles from one day, August 16, in the Washington Post daily email. Included are all articles related to the election. There were no articles with Hillary in the headline included in the email.

There has been some introspection among a few mainstream journalists, who have stepped back and asked themselves, have we gone over the top in our media campaign against Donald Trump? We should be cautious in attributing this to integrity, something we haven’t seen too much of in the media.  But every now and again we get some nuggets of truth, even from the least likely sources; ironically, those whose job it is to bring us the truth: journalists.

As one of the self-reflective articles from The Week points out, there is apparently a collective decision on behalf of the media that “any pretense of covering the campaign dispassionately deserves to be thrown out the window.”  I would suggest that this is provoked by the prospect of Trump representing the interests of Whites, who thus far have been content to be exploited as a tax-cow for the benefit of foreign and domestic parasites. The anti-Trump media offensive was described on Fash the Nation recently as a “saturation bombing,” which is an apt metaphor, as this feels like a war.

It has come to the point where one questions whether we actually have a democracy if public opinion is molded with such a heavy hand, and with such sinister coordination. Rush Limbaugh, who for whatever his limitations, is quite deft at parsing media bias, opined about the campaign, “It is one-sided like we’ve never seen before, and I don’t know how to overcome it.” I had a friend from work text me this summer asking if Trump were dropping out of the race (one of the disinformation campaigns from Clinton/media), which confirmed that these smears are all too effective.  We may seethe at the transparent agenda, but ordinary working people who don’t care too much about politics likely take what they see on TV at face value, and that is a little concerning to say the least.   Read more

Jewish Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump (5): Would Trump’s Defeat Be Blamed On Jews?

/21 Comments/in , , , /by

donaldtrumpataipac

Posted at Vdare.com

See previous articles in this series.

Almost exactly a year ago, VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow raised the question of whether America’s Jewish groups would turn on Donald Trump (who after all has Jewish grandchildren and a lifetime of Jewish business associates) with the hysteria they employed against Patrick J. Buchanan. I have been tracking the matter ever since and the answer is now in: yes—clearly triggered by visceral reaction against Trump’s nationalist acceptance speech in Cleveland and outright panic at his subsequent poll lead (July 25-29 according to the Real Clear Politics average). I suspect, however, that we have crossed a watershed and that, regardless of the results of this election, this will not end well for them.

Before the convention, Wall Street Journal Deputy Editorial Page Editor Bret Stephens [Email him] said with astonishing arrogance: “It’s important that Donald Trump and what he represents—this kind of ethnic quote, ‘conservatism,’ or populism be so decisively rebuked that the Republican Party, the Republican voters will forever learn their lesson…” WSJ‘s Bret Stephens: Trump Must Lose So Badly That the GOP Voters ‘Learn Their Lesson’, by Sam Reisman, Mediaite, May 29 2016.

Just on Friday, Paul Krugman [Email him] writing in the New York Times continued the now-widespread theme: any expression of ethnic identity by America’s whites, no matter how implicit, was “bigoted” and “white nationalist”:

Recently Avik Roy, a leading Republican health-policy expert, had the personal and moral courage to admit what liberals (and political scientists) have been saying for years: “In reality, the gravitational center of the Republican Party is white nationalism.”

Just to be clear, I’m not saying that top Republicans were or are personally bigoted—but that doesn’t matter. What does matter is that they were willing to curry favor with bigots in the service of tax cuts for the rich and financial deregulation. Remember, Mitt Romney eagerly accepted a Trump endorsement in 2012, knowing full well that he was welcoming a racist conspiracy theorist into his camp.

All that has happened this year is a move of those white nationalists from part of the supporting cast to a starring role.

Pieces of Silver, August 12, 2016 (links in original)

Read more

White Alert: Organize or Suffer the Consequences

/28 Comments/in , /by

White Americans must act to promote and protect their legitimate interests. Section one explains why organization is essential; section two proposes what forms the organization should take; and section three offers possibilities for personal action toward achieving those goals.

Section I

Very unpleasant consequences await us if we fail to organize. For the necessary motivation, we must fully appreciate the perils that loom ahead if we don’t change course.

Today we hear that we possess something called “White privilege,” an unearned advantage which keeps all other groups under our thumb. But the reality is quite different. We now have an immigration policy that is dead set on making Whites, the historic majority of America, a minority within the next 25 years or so. If current projections stay on course, our percentage of the population could sink to 40 percent or lower by the end of this century. Demography is indeed destiny, and this decline certainly will lead to loss of power and influence.

Whites at present have more per capita wealth than Blacks and Hispanics, though somewhat less wealth than Asians. Our assets, however, are being transferred to Blacks and Hispanics through taxation to fund various social programs and welfare. At the same time, our earning power is being limited by so-called “affirmative action,” a policy of government-promoted racial discrimination against White Americans in the job market and education.

Its original justification was to provide an even playing field for Blacks because they had a claim on our conscience for past discrimination. But today the benefits of affirmative action go to all non-Whites, including immigrants and their descendants who have no historic claim on America at all. And among them are the Asians who already exceed Whites in average income.

With the White electorate declining and the non-White electorate increasing, the transfer of wealth will continue unabated and perhaps will accelerate. Politicians in the not so distant future, for example, may cut Social Security and Medicare, programs which tend to benefit elderly Whites and transfer the savings to Medicaid, a program that disproportionately helps minorities—who are on their way to becoming the majority. As for affirmative action, would this rising majority of minorities vote to give it up? Perhaps, but probably not. Read more

Thought control in the UK: Britain’s state-sponsored intimidation of Whites

/24 Comments/in /by

The Muslim child rape gangs are back on the streets of Rotherham and bolder than ever. The Daily Express has revealed that carloads of Muslims are openly harassing girls, threatening their parents and moving around completely untroubled by the recent scandal. They have no fear of the cowed White population, much less the police or anyone else in authority.

But it would be wrong to think that the police are doing nothing about racial tension in the UK. This week a White man was convicted for making “grossly offensive” comments about Muslims on Facebook after the slaughter in Nice. This follows the jailing of another White man for tweeting his anger at a left-wing politician who demanded that more refugees be brought into Britain.

Despite the lip-service over concern about Muslim rape gangs, the authorities know their efforts must be focused on suppressing White rage. The Brexit referendum showed this is just underneath the surface, and with the discreet dispersal of thousands of Syrian refugees into poorer parts of the country at the end of June and July, what was needed was a not-too-subtle wave of intimidation. This has been achieved by way of a transparently bogus hate-crime campaign launched in the days after Brexit.

As if on some pre-arranged signal, there was, across the country, a flood of stories about how the Brexit vote had triggered a nationwide “hate crime” epidemic in which “hate crimes” went up 42% after the  vote. Why the victorious side would be stirred to such anger is not clear. Could it be that this scaremongering campaign was planned well in advance? Read more

State of Hate: How Paranoia and Arrogance Undermine Outsiders

/26 Comments/in /by

Mein Gott! Will Mossad have to undertake some strategic assassinations in the UK? Even before the toxic tsunami of xenophobia triggered by the vote for Brexit, public discourse here had been infected by the most appalling anti-Semitism. In 2015 a British newspaper openly suggested that Jews are “outsiders” who are prone to paranoia, arrogance and insecurity. It went on to suggest that Jews can’t see “another’s point of view,” are “ruthless,” make “outrageous” demands on reasonable people, and have a “very Manichean view of the world”: either you’re a friend of theirs or a foe.

Have the writer, editor and printer responsible for these vicious stereotypes been prosecuted and jailed for incitement to racial hatred? Shockingly, they haven’t: the hate-criminals are still at large, free to continue spreading their vile message. That’s why I think Mossad might need to ready the poison-charged umbrellas and cyanide pistols. To assist Mossad’s investigations, I herewith reproduce the most damning parts of the hate-article:

Our greatest Jewish Prime Minister? That was Thatcher

… She represented the constituency of Finchley, with its large Jewish population. At one stage, nearly a quarter of her cabinet were of Jewish origin: she advanced the careers of Leon Brittan, Nigel Lawson, Malcolm Rifkind, Edwina Currie and Michael Howard. She was unwavering in her belief that Britain should retain strong ties with Israel. And she was very close to Britain’s late Chief Rabbi, Immanuel Jakobovits (“Thatcher’s Rabbi”) from whom she was said to seek “spiritual reinforcement”. …

Read more

On The Left and the Myth of the ‘Jewish Proletariat’

/76 Comments/in , , /by

‘The weight of the Jews’ exploitation is great and their harmfulness unlimited. … If we find it possible to preach revolution, and only revolution against the nobles, how can we defend the Jews?’
Ukrainian Communist Revolutionary, 1876.[1]

In the months immediately before his coronation in 1189, Richard the Lionheart became aware of rising anti-Jewish sentiment among the people of England. This ill-feeling was the result of decades of rampant usury, property seizures, social disparities, and what historian Robert Chazan described as the “effective royal protection” of Henry II.[2] Eager to ally himself with the mood of the nation, particularly in the tenuous early days of his reign, Richard appealed to the sentiments of the masses by banning Jews from attending the coronation ceremony at Westminster Abbey. News of the ban was welcomed by the people, but the move was deeply unsettling to England’s Jews. The prohibition was nervously perceived by the nation’s Hebrews as a weakening of the vital Jewish relationship with the elite. This relationship, particularly the protection it provided to Jewish loan merchants, had been absolutely essential to the untroubled continuation of the Jews’ highly antagonistic financial practices among the lower orders. Without this protection, the position of the Jews in England would no longer be viable. Therefore, in a desperate attempt to resist a decline in Jewish influence, on the day of the coronation a party of senior Jews arrived at the doors of Westminster Abbey bearing lavish gifts and sycophantic tongues. The effort was in vain.

The Jewish party were refused entry by nobles and officials, and the group was then stripped and flogged for their flagrant defiance of royal orders. Since this punishment was a public display, a story soon circulated among the peasantry that the new king consented to general action against the Jews, and that the royal elite was now siding with the people. In the ensuing days, luxurious Jewish homes were burned, and castles containing Jewish debt rolls were stormed and their contents destroyed. These actions, however, were built on an assumption of elite backing that was in reality non-existent. The expectations of the masses were soon rudely crushed. The Lionheart’s banning of the Jews had been a mere measure of propaganda intended to endear him to his subjects, and the flogging of the intruding party was carried out without his consent. In truth, the King remained as beholden to the sway of mammon as his predecessors. When push came to shove, the peasantry, unlike ‘his’ Jews, were expendable. Richard wasted little time in rounding up and executing the ringleaders of the anti-Jewish action, even including those who had damaged Jewish property by accident. He then issued orders to “the sheriffs of England to prevent all such incidents in the future.”[3] In the aftermath of this crushing of the people, the Jews of England would once again remain under high levels of royal protection until ‘the Lionheart’ left the country for the Third Crusade — a venture, ironically, to relieve people in foreign nations of the tyranny of ‘infidels.’ The entire affair remains a perfect illustration of the centuries-old symbiotic relationship between Jews and our native elites, and the thread of parasitic capitalism that binds them. Read more